


BKJamison&Co. 




N. W. Corner Third and Chestnut Streets. 


The Accounts of Banks, Bankers, and Individuals solicited. 


Interest a 
Persons cl 
as with Nath 
Certificat 
bearing inter 
Collectioi 
Orders ii 
executed at 
Correspo 
Coupons 


> Gold. 

n the same manner 


ad or at fixed date, 



United States, 
inds of Securities 
YORK BOARDS. 
;ion at all times. 


SON & CO. 


EACH. 


BOUND 


TWO VOLUMES. 


This “Li 
Masonic Worl 


js the best Selections 
tains the following : 


“OLIYE1 
“ ANDEI 
“ILLUS: 

“HISTORY OF FKEEM ASUIN ui.' — oy ouvu. 
“BOOK OF THE LODGE.” 

“MANT’S POCKET COMPANION.” 

“ SANDY’S HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY.” 


’—1723 Edition. 


VOLUME 2. 

“DERMOTT’S AHIMAN REZON.” — 1753 and 1764 Edition combined. 

“SYMBOLIC DICTIONARY OF FREEMASONRY.” 

“HISTORY OF INITIATION. ” 

“HALLIWELL’S ANCIENT POEM.”— Supposed to have been written 
later than the Fourteenth Century. 

“CONSTITUTIONS OF FREEMASONRY.”— (1738 Edition. This Wot 
in a Historical point, is of the highest value. There is a mystery involved in t? 
“ Charges of a Freemason,” which differ from the 1723 Edition. This work is rj 
published in any other Library.) 

“CONSTITUTIONS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND.” 

The highest Masonic authorities in the country have patronized and reccj 
mended the Masonic Library to the Craft. 

LEON HYNEMAN, I 
























. | 












- - . 


. 

. 

* $ 
















■ 

* 


















* 














. 

- * - 

; 



















* 
















5 • 4 BJ 




































































. 




' A 




























. 































. 

, 










. 










■ ' 










r 


» 






















* <* - 











































■ 







- 






















- 













* 


















3 S70.C ’ 


The most important Masonic Book of this Century . 


Ancient York 

AND 

London Grand Lodges 


A REVIEW OF 

FREEMASONRY IN ENGLAND 

FROM 1567 TO 1813. 


BY 

LEON HYNEMAN. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

OFFICE Mrs. WILLIAM CURTIS, 

MASONIC FURNISHING DEPOT, 146 N. SIXTH STREET. 

1872. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by 
LEON HYNEMAN, 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 


STEREOTYPED BY J. FAGAN & SON, PHILADELPHIA. 
MOORE BROS., PRINTERS. 


* ^'c s Jsi C 


TO 


THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


# 

This Book is written in the interest of pure, legiti- 
mate, Ancient Masonry, and not as a remunerative 
effort. Its aim is to give direction to Masonic thought 
in the elimination and expression of the great funda- 
mental principles of the Institution, pure Universal , 
Cosmopolitan Masonry and Charity. 

To the Freemasons of the Old School this Book 
will be most welcome, in view of the innovating ten- 
dencies changing the character and design of the 
Institution from its original aims. To these, and all 
right-thinking Masons, whose minds are imbued with 
a sense of the responsibilities resting upon them, as 
children of the Universal Father, to seek truth , and 
to appropriate it, no apology is needed for this pro- 
duction. 

This Book is not written in the view of what Ma- 
sonry is, as expressed in these days, but what it 
should be, and its design in the fulfilment of solemn 
covenants assumed by every Freemason. The ne- 
cessity for its writing will appear in the wide depart- 
ures from original fundamental principles. It is not 

iii 


IV 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


written in the popular Masonic style, to allure the 
ignorant and unthinking masses, within and outside 
of the Institution, with the belief that Masonry is a 
great reformatory school ; neither as a propaganda 
effort, by specious or seeming sentimental laudation, 
to induce the outside masses to seek admission into 
the fraternity. 

We have a higher aim, and eschew, as a Mason, all 
efforts at popularizing Masonry outside of the exem- 
plification of its principles in the upright and useful 
lives of its members, their efforts to improve and 
benefit their fellow-beings, and exemplifying the great 
principles of Charity, divinely illustrated in relief of 
poor needy Masons, their widows and orphans. 

The popular Masonic writers of the past and pres- 
ent time have created, through their publications, a 
literature inimical to every feature and principle of 
legitimate Masonry, which, as historical, is mainly 
mythical ; if traditional, fabulous ; if symbolical, sec- 
tarian and destructive of universal catholic Masonic 
principles. In the aim of sectarianism, legends and 
legendary myths pre- and post-Adamic, sculptures on 
ancient remains, engravings on ancient coins, paint- 
ings, &c., on Monastic and other structures, and cere- 
monial usages and traditions of savage tribes, are all 
eagerly sought and incorporated into what is consid- 
ered the literature of Masonry, with the view to effect 
a popular sentiment favorable to the Masonic Institu- 
tion upon the public mind, and to impress unthinking 
Masons with illusory conceptions of the widespread 
antiquity of Masonry, as well as the great learning of 
the writers. 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


V 


The misdirection of the Masonic mind, from causes 
referred to, and the undue efforts to render Masonry- 
popular, has been the means to create a desire to join 
the fraternity, and hence the great rush of applicants 
to be made Masons. The influences to that end are 
caused more by sectarian innovations than anything 
else, as the effects are to cause Masons to look lightly 
upon the Institution, and to weaken the importance 
of the obligations taken, and the teachings Masonry 
inculcates. 

We are opposed to all sectarian allusion or illus- 
tration in Masonry. The substitution of the word 
Religion, so freely used by Masonic writers, is only a 
cheat and a fraud, as religion is not meant, but the 
creed and articles of faith of some sectarian denomi- 
nation. The word religion is seldom considered in a 
universal sense, and rarely so by Masonic writers. 
Its substitution for creed has caused cosmopolitan 
Masonry to be ignored, and the tendency, since 
Templarism has been very generally engrafted into 
the Masonic system, is to narrow Masonry into a 
particular sect. 

We hold that sectarianism has no proper concep- 
tion of Deity, of God the Universal Father. The 
natural tendency of sectarianism is to narrow man’s 
conceptions of the Divine Being, and to narrow his 
relations to his fellow-men. It i^jnimical to frater- 
nity in a wide sense, and hence foreign and opposed 
to the universal principles of Masonry. It does not 
recognize a common brotherhood, neither a common 
paternity, and follows, even to the grave, the remains 


VI 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


of those who are not of the same creed, members of 
the same church. 

Masonry, in its broad, comprehensive view of 
Deity, comprehending the attributes of omnipotence, 
omniscience, and omnipresence, recognizes the power, 
wisdom, and love of God, in the unfoldment of uni- 
versal nature, the efficient means provided to supply 
all possible true needs of his children, and that uni- 
versal humanity are one family, and that all live, 
move, and have their being in one Universal Parent. 

Masonry, therefore, makes no distinction among 
men, acknowledges all as brothers,' but in its aims, 
as an organization to improve and benefit mankind, 
confines the association to such only as have the dis- 
position, manifested in their lives, to co-operate in 
promoting the objects of the Institution. In this 
effort no distinction nor differences among men are 
known, as to place of birth, of race, creed, or opin- 
ion ; but those only of whatever nation are privileged 
to unite in its useful and beneficent aims who have an 
established character for integrity, uprightness, love 
of their kind, and are well known for their efforts in 
behalf of humanity, and as possessing benevolent 
dispositions. 

The principles of Masonry are practical, and 
founded upon the basis illustrated by the Divine 
Being in the phenomenal manifestations of nature,^ 
the universal exemplar through which God teaches 
all human life the mode and manner of his govern- 
ment. All aims are only valuable as they are useful. 
To be employed in uses should be man’s aim in indi- 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


vii 


vidual or associative efforts. God never intended 
man to be idle only in rest, to recuperate and renew 
his energies. Human beings are finite, and subject 
to nature’s limitations, and therefore need rest. God 
is infinite, and is ceaselessly at work, through the 
instrumentality of his laws, in unfolding phenomenal 
nature. 

In progressive civilization, man is a co-worker with 
God. In order, therefore, to be useful in promoting 
civilization, as God designed he should be, he must 
exercise his faculties to unfold his interior percep- 
tions. Man can only be useful as he is intelligent, 
and only in that degree. The mare intelligence he 
has, the greater his capacity for usefulness. Man 
should therefore exercise his faculties — expand them 
in increasing knowledge — so that he can more ably 
co-operate and fulfil the design of the Creator in ad- 
vancing civilization, and add to the comfort and hap- 
piness of his fellow-men. 

Masonry should be a great instrumentality in pro- 
moting useful knowledge, and conducing to the 
welfare and happiness of mankind. Such should be 
its aim, otherwise it is of but little use, and like the 
non-producer, would only be an impediment to the 
world’s progress. Departing from its original aim, 
from the fundamental principles upon which the sys- 
tem is based, Masonry has been diverted into a dif- 
ferent channel, contrary to its intents, and subversive 
of its efforts in humanity’s cause. It is no longer a 
co-worker with God in advancing the race. It no 
longer walks with God the Universal Father. The 


viii TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 

God named in connection with religion, in effusions 
of orators and addresses, is the God of Theology, a 
contracted being, and not the God of Masonry. 

We believe that the principles of Freemasonry, out- 
wrought in their fulness, are the best ever devised by 
man to promote his happiness in this life and advance 
him to higher spheres in spirit life. The visible and 
invisible worlds are all embraced in God’s universe. 
God is a spiritual being. Man is a physical and a 
spiritual being. The former is subject to the limita- 
tions taf nature; the latter is not subject to any limi- 
tations. It is the spiritual that is the intelligent 
moving cause of the activities of the physical man. 

The spiritual never loses its consciousness. The 
intelligence it possesses, and all that it has acquired 
in the development of its individuality, it carries with 
it into spirit life, and ever continues to develop its 
individuality in its progress through the eternal 
spheres. The spiritual is not buried with the physi- 
cal. Life is eternal. These are the higher teachings 
of Masonry in their symbolic illustration. 

The spiritual is within all expressions of man, and 
all of Nature’s productions. Within is the spiritual 
life — the true life ; the outer is only the manifesta- 
tion of life. All objective nature — material and im- 
material — are the outwrought manifestations of life . 
Objective nature is outwrought of invisible elements 
combining according to affinity. The invisible ele- 
ments aggregate into concrete materiality and are 
reduced again to elements; the rock and tree, all 
objective materiality becomes invisible. 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. ix 

Nature’s life is in incessant and continual change, in 
building up forms, in renewing elements from decay- 
ing and decomposed materiality. In the ultimate all 
things become invisible, but there is nothing lost in 
all of nature’s changes. This brief illustration is 
convincing proof of man’s immortality. As nothing 
is lost in nature, so consciousness the ultimate of 
God’s phenomenal manifestations, God’s medium 
through which man becomes a co-worker with him, 
can lose nothing that it has acquired in being divested 
of the material body. 

As the consciousness is never in abeyance, and as 
God works in and through uses only, the spirit life of 
man must have a purpose; that purpose, as God 
never works in vain, must be in the unfolding of the 
consciousness to higher and ever higher attainments. 
In view of the eternal life, life then in the material 
form is most important, and not to be trifled with and 
frittered away in the frivolous manner it generally is. 
Freemasons, of all men, should give this subject their 
earnest attention. The subject specially pertains to 
Masonic teachings. It is illustrated in the ritual 
work. But the explanations, if adverted to at all, are 
in accordance, with theologic teachings, and hence 
the dogma of the resurrection of the physical body 
incorporated by many of the clergy and sectarian 
religionists in explanation of the subject. 

The study of man, the chief and most important of 
all subjects, erect in form, with commanding figure, 
is that which Freemasons should give their attention 
to. It should be all-absorbing. It embraces more 


X 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


than can be written. In the production of the human 
form, all nature, all the elements in lower life, in 
lower forms, are concentrated to make up the ulti- 
mate of God’s works, the human being, dual, man 
and woman, forming one complete individuality. All 
lower life and forms gradually progress upwards in 
harmony with the original aim of divine being to pro- 
duce the intelligent being formed in God’s likeness — 
man and woman — the completion of nature’s phe- 
nomenal productions. How great the theme, sublime 
the subject, the consideration that the thought in the 
divine mind to create a being formed after his like- 
ness, involved the gradual process through illimitable 
ages, to produce the conditions through the fulfilment 
of nature’s forces in phenomenal manifestations to 
attain the grand end in the conscious human being, 
appearing on the stage of mundane life ! But the 
primal process of nature’s developments, however 
mysterious the subject may appear, and although 
science in its progressive movements has done much 
to bless and benefit mankind, yet in its investigations 
confined to details, has not arrived at a knowledge of 
the principles and laws through which phenomenal 
nature is outwrought, whilst the infinite mind is con- 
stantly illustrating the process to human sensuous 
observation. 

To the Craft Universal these thoughts are ad- 
dressed, in the hope that some at least, however few, 
may turn their thoughts to the study of themselves, 
the aim and object of life, and in the progress of in- 
vestigation they will not only learn more of the 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


XI 


nature, and attributes, and mode of God’s govern- 
ment, but that the study will greatly add to their 
happiness, and give them the conscious conviction of 
eternal life and progression in spirit spheres. 

In the review of Masonry in England we confined 
our investigations chiefly to Anderson’s two Books 
of Constitutions and Preston’s Illustrations. In our 
comments we have been plain, outspoken, and severe, 
which some may consider too much so, but in our 
judgment the subjects merited all and more than we 
have expressed. The investigation we considered a 
duty, and are satisfied with its performance. Al- 
though disagreeable the necessity for the task, it was 
undertaken as a labor of love, and not for any remu- 
neration it might give. The judgment of the Craft 
was intentionally misdirected by the London Masons 
in the last century, and, as no one had undertaken to 
examine and compare the Grand Lodge publications, 
perhaps, from not having all the editions, or, if so, 
having read them carelessly ; or, from lack of inter- 
est, not comparing them to ascertain if they agreed ; 
we considered it necessary to perform the labor, in 
order to give a right direction to Masonic thoughts. 

The quotations, dates, and figures, taken from orig- 
inal copies, may be relied on as correct. 

Our review does not take in the Union of the two 
bodies of Masons, but reaches to the time when it 
was about being consummated. Although no one 
can apply our remarks on the conduct of the London 
Grand Lodge, the members under its banner, or the 
authors referred to, to the Masons in England since 


Xll 


TO THE CRAFT UNIVERSAL. 


the union, we consider it essential, not to be misun- 
derstood, to say a few words in regard to the present 
Grand Lodge of England, and will close with the fol- 
lowing observations. The influence of one good and 
true man, by his example, may exert an influence 
upon others that will extend far and wide, in time 
and space. The example of the Prince of Wales, in 
being unbiassed and not entering into the un-Masonic 
and illiberal feelings of the London Masons, more 
than his exalted position, had the effect to cause an 
entire revolution in change of disposition and senti- 
ment, among the London Masons under the Earl of 
Moira. The influence of his example, in the direction 
of cosmopolitan Masonry, and adherence to funda- 
mental principles, has extended through all the years 
to the present time, throughout the entire length and 
breadth of the extended jurisdiction of the United 
Grand Lodge of England. 


ANCIENT YORK 

AND 

LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


I T is a source of great disappointment to the Ma- 
sonic student, in his attempts to investigate and 
satisfy himself as to the probable origin of certain sub- 
jects connected with Freemasonry, to find, on looking 
over the authorized publications and prominent au- 
thors, so very little to assist him in his efforts. It is 
not alone the meagre and insufficient details which 
characterize all these works which annoy and disgust 
the student in his researches, but the mortification to 
discover that important matters in one book, whether 
of authority or not, are either omitted in others or 
additional matter introduced not in the original. It 
is the same in historical data, transactions at Grand 
Lodge meetings, or current events among the frater- 
nity ; and which to accept as the most reliable is very 
embarrassing, and the course generally pursued is that 
the attempts end in projecting a theory, as others had 
before him, on the problematical, dubious, and insuf- 
ficient data furnished in the authorized Grand Lodge’s 

2 13 


♦ 


14 ANCIENT YORK AND 

publications. That has been uniformly the case, with 
but few exceptions, of all Masonic historians and 
writers treating on the subject of Freemasonry in the 
last one hundred and fifty years. There is one gen- 
eral thought traversing all these inditings, one direc- 
tion in which they agree in their ventilations, one 
central standpoint out of which they do not range, 
which is, a uniform conformity in agreement with the 
views of the Grand Lodge publications, as if they 
were of divine inspiration, and their authority not to 
be questioned by finite minds. 

Dr. 01 iver;*in his “Account of the Schism” in Eng- 
land, and his elaborate letters on the “ Origin of the 
English Royal Arch,” with seemingly the best inten- 
tions to be unbiassed in writing to his friend and 
reverend brother, Dr. Crucifix, yet he wrote as if tram- 
melled and confined in his range of thought to views 
in accord with all his other Masonic writings. 

The first authorized Masonic publications were the 
Books of Constitutions published by order of the 
London Grand Lodge in 1723 and 1738 respectively, 
which were compiled by Dr. Anderson, and of which 
he claimed to be the author. Preston published 
his “Illustrations of Masonry” in 1772. This book 
ran through many editions, has been reprinted in 
many places, is known in every country where Free- 
masons are found ; and although a century has passed 
since its first appearance, it is still held in high favor 
as the best history of Masonry by Freemasons gen- 
erally. Anderson’s Books of Constitutions, although 
published by direction and with the sanction of the 


i5 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 

>c - 

Grand Lodge and its approval, if they had not been 
reprinted by others, would scarcely be known by 
the fraternity at this day, which to a very general 
extent is the case with particularly the 1738 edition. 
As Anderson and Preston materially differ in their 
statements of historical occurrences as well as the 
passing current events, it seems strange that no per- 
son in England has yet attempted to institute a com- 
parison as to the reliability of the statements made 
by the two authors, wherein they differed as to Ma- 
sonic events noted by one, and differently stated by 
the other, or altogether omitted. Preston is decidedly 
more full and clear than Anderson, although both 
wrote in the interest of the London Grand Lodge, yet 
not with the same bias of feeling. Anderson was one 
of the originators of the London Grand Lodge, and 
as a man of strong prejudices he was biassed in all 
his inditings, evidences of which are seen throughout 
his two publications on every possible occasion, in the 
omission of historical facts, or giving a contrary con- 
struction to, and diverting attention in cases reflecting 
unfavorably upon the New Grand Lodge. The Books 
of Anderson, however, are almost universally accepted 
by the Masonic fraternity as containing a true history 
of Freemasonry, at least from the time our review 
commences, and the Ancient Charges, especially those 
contained in the 1723 edition, are as generally adopted 
as the fundamental law and basis of Masonic princi- 
ples. But notwithstanding Anderson’s Books of 
Constitutions were published by order of the London 
Grand Lodge, with its approval and sanction, yet no 


1 6 ANCIENT YORK AND 

more untrustworthy, unreliable books were ever 
printed under the direction of any organized asso- 
ciation. We affirm that Anderson is not to be cred- 
ited. The Books of Constitutions were written pur- 
posely to deceive, to mislead and misrepresent facts 
as they existed ; and if his reports of Grand Lodge 
Proceedings are true copies of Grand Lodge Records, 
then the records were corrupted with the design to 
mislead the reader. That such was the case will be 
seen hereafter. 

The general sentiment favorable to Anderson is 
mainly because of his compilation of the “Ancient 
Charges,” and because Masons read them without 
due reflection and accept his statements as authority. 
That which is popular is not always true. A state- 
ment made by an author in regard to an historical 
event is often misstated in some interest or other to 
mislead, and this Anderson has done. Dr. Oliver, 
one hundred years later, in the same manner per- 
verted history to render more probable the misstate- 
ments of Anderson. But Dr. Oliver, in his reprint of 
Preston’s Illustrations, notwithstanding his omission 
of important particulars, has given sufficient evidence 
of Anderson’s unreliability as author and compiler; 
yet Anderson’s Constitutions are the gospels Free- 
masons swear by. They are accepted as if of divine 
authority. He is the light which shineth in the dark- 
ness to believers. Was he not a minister of the Gos- 
pel, and therefore incapable of being biassed against 
truth in his productions as author? 

The history of the organization of the Grand Lodge 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


1 7 


in London in 1717, with the reasons stated for the 
movement, are insufficient, incomplete, and not con- 
sistent with Anderson’s own statements. The prior 
movements of the craft in London, as stated by An- 
derson, conflict with his version of the cause which 
led to the formation of the Grand Lodge. He differs 
widely from Preston in important particulars. The 
movement, without a critical analysis of preceding 
events showing an object to attain, an ultimate end 
in harmony with the culmination of the end sought, 
will be an incomprehensible mystery, and hence the 
confliction of views of earnest investigators at the 
present time. The 1717 movement was not a “ revi- 
val,” as Anderson has it, and recent writers contend 
it to have been. Revolution is the proper term, as 
it was the culmination of revolutionary movements 
commenced more than one hundred and fifty years 
prior, and continued through all those years to gain 
the end aimed at. The movements subsequent to 1717 
prove it, as the course pursued by the new Grand 
Lodge towards the York Grand Lodge was of the 
same character as before the revolution. The York 
Grand Lodge cannot be ignored, as Anderson and 
some writers of the present day aim to do. It has a 
record prior to 1717 and subsequent, although Ma- 
sonry in print prior to 1723 was a rare occurrence. 

The 1723 publication is silent as the grave on the 
subject of the new Grand Lodge, — does not even allude 
to it, nor mention it in any way, although it contains 
a history running from “Adam, our first parent,” 
down to “ our present worthy Grand Master, the most 
2* B 


l8 ANCIENT YORK AND 

noble Prince John, Duke of Montagu.” This brought 
the so-called history down five years after the revolu- 
tion and the formation of the new Grand Lodge; but 
not a word of that important event, no reference nor 
allusion to a single incident or circumstance in con- 
nection with it, — the subject has no place in that pub- 
lication. Ominous silence ! Were the four Lodges 
which met with ‘‘some old Brothers” at the Apple- 
Tree Tavern without any connection with or relation 
to other Masonic organizations ? Whence the origin 
of the four Lodges ? The members must have been 
made Masons under some authority. There must 
have been some prior organization under whose au- 
thority they were received and admitted into the fra- 
ternity. Who were those “old Brothers”? Under 
what banner were they made Masons ? How many 
Masons were present at the meeting at the Apple- 
Tree Tavern ? Anderson gives us no information on 
these subjects. 

In the 1738 publication, Anderson, in an enlarged 
history, gives an account of the formation of the 
London Grand Lodge, (which see further on,) from 
which it will be seen that the above questions are per- 
tinent and significant. It must be remembered that 
Anderson, Desaguliers, and others, who were promot- 
ers of the revolution and active members of the new 
Grand Lodge, and continued so to at least until after the 
approval of the 1738 publication, must have known, as 
they were men of education, that the meagre, insuf- 
ficient, imperfect statement in the 1738 edition would 
not and could not be satisfactory to the intelligent 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


19 


reader of the circumstances connected with the or- 
ganization of the new Grand Lodge. It would seem 
that in the interest of truth, and for future information 
and reference, the details of organization would have 
been published ; the notice or circular calling the 
meeting, with the object stated to be accomplished, 
and the reasons therefor; the form of constituting a 
Grand Lodge pro tempore , as a precedent ; and a full 
detail of the particulars, from the initiation of the 
movement until its final consummation in electing a 
Grand Master and closing the meeting. 

There was a motive for the reticence of Anderson 
in not publishing the details to which we have re- 
ferred, so necessary to form a correct judgment as to 
the legality or illegality, propriety or impropriety, 
right or wrong of the so-called revival. But Ander- 
son was not alone interested in omitting to notice all 
of the important particulars of that revolutionary 
movement. All those engaged in the formation of 
the new Grand Lodge had particular reasons for not 
having their motives and intentions known to the 
public. It will be our province, in the course of our 
writing, to lay before our readers the motives that 
actuated the craft in London in organizing the new 
Grand Lodge, and the particular reasons for keeping 
from the public eye the information necessary to a 
proper understanding of the cause or causes that in- 
fluenced them to revolution. 

It must be borne in mind, that, before Anderson’s 
Constitutions, published in 1723, no publication on 
the subject of Masonry had been printed. Anderson 


20 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


says, 1720, page 613, ed. 1738, Hyneman’s Reprint, 
“(for they had nothing yet in print,)” referring 
to some manuscripts “ burnt by some scrupulous 
Brothers.” 

We maintain that prior to the revolution, 1717, the 
craft in the south of England still held their relation 
to the York Grand Lodge — that they were not inde- 
pendent of its authority — that, there were Lodges in 
London and other parts of the south of England 
which did not join the revolutionists, but retained 
their connection with the Grand Lodge at York — 
that the revolution was without justification — that 
the assumed cause of Grand Master Wren neglecting 
the Lodges was simply an excuse to justify the am- 
bitious Masons of London- to carry into effect a long 
pre-entertained purpose — that the opportunity was 
favorable to their design, and hence the ignoring the 
existence of the York Grand Lodge and their silence 
in regard to everything concerning the revolutionary 
movement. 

As we have already remarked, the 1723 Anderson 
publication does not mention the existence of the 
new Grand Lodge, only in the last paragraph, which 
closes with the name of the fifth Grand Master, the 
“ Duke of Montague.” This history is a curiosity in 
its wa y, and evidently designed to divert the attention 
away from the objective subject which such a publi- 
cation ought to contain. For the benefit of our read- 
ers, we copy the commencement of the first three 
paragraphs. First. “Adam, our first parent, created 
after the image of God, the great Architect of the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


21 


Universe, must have had the liberal sciences, particu- 
larly geometry, written on his heart.” Second. “ No 
doubt, Adam taught his sons geometry.” Third. 
“Nor can we suppose that Seth was less instructed, 
who, being the prince of the other half of mankind, 
and also the prime cultivator of astronomy, would 
take equal care to teach geometry and ' Masonry to 
his offspring.” 

The 1738 history, more elaborate, differs from the 
preceding one, but is written in the same chimerical, 
visionary, fanciful style, and notices all the Grand 
Masters from Adam down to Caernarvon, 1738, but 
omits to mention the Grand Lodge at York, or its 
Grand Masters; only at page 592, (Vol. 2, Hyneman’s 
“ Masonic Library,”) in noticing the mythical attempt 
of Queen Elizabeth to break up the annual meeting 
of the York Grand Lodge, December 27th, 1561, and 
noticing that “ Francis Russel, Earl of Bedford, was 
chosen Grand Master in the North,” that is, in 1567. 
There is one other place where Anderson mentions 
“the old Lodge at York City,” p. 676, to which we 
will refer hereafter. The existence of the Grand 
Lodge at York in 1567 is mentioned by Anderson; 
also the charter purchased by Prince Edwin from his 
brother, King Athelstan, and the meeting summoned 
at York, 926, (page 580, Mas. Library;) and although 
in the Elizabethan affair he mentions the Grand 
Lodge at York as above, page 592, yet on the same 
page, in referring to a Grand Master being chosen, 
he only states “in the North;” otherwise the York 
Grand Lodge is altogether overlooked in the entire 
publication. 


22 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


The evident intention of the revolutionists was not 
only to ignore the existence of the Grand Lodge at 
York, but of any York Lodges being in that jurisdic- 
tion. Their aim was through Anderson’s publications 
to give prominence to their own organization, the new 
Grand Lodge, and to make it appear that there were 
no other Lodges of Masons in England in 1717, ex- 
cept the four concerned in the formation of the Grand 
Lodge. Anderson was well qualified for carrying out 
their views, not only as possessing the abilities, but 
his position in society — being a clergyman and being 
a revolutionist himself. He only wrote what he be- 
lieved would be favorable to the new Grand Lodge 
and give it character; all else he omitted. He 
does not mention a single effort made by the London 
Masons to increase their privileges, nor the assuming 
powers existing in the Grand Lodge at York only; 
neither the encroachments upon its authority. He is 
silent on every subject in which the Grand Lodge at 
York would necessarily have to be mentioned. He 
writes for the revolutionists, and whilst he panders to 
their vanity, he caters for his own self-glorification. 

The city of York, located in the northern part of 
England, did not offer inducements for enterprise, 
consequently the growth of population was limited, 
and therefore the fraternity made but slow progress 
in increasing their numbers ; besides, the Masons 
there, as many of the old Masons since, and at the 
present day, were more intent in the conservation of 
Masonic principles and its esoteric teachings than an 
increase of membership, and therefore excluded them- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


23 


selves from the world’s observation as much as pos- 
sible. All pageantry and pompous exhibition at 
public parades and processions were considered by 
them as foreign to Masonic propriety, as well as the 
use of printer’s ink for the purpose of bringing the 
fraternity prominently before the public. They 
eschewed notoriety, did not court the public gaze, 
made no outward demonstrations, did not decorate 
themselves with ornamental clothing, wore no gew- 
gaws or trinkets in their daily life to attract the 
world’s attention, and at their assemblings were sat- 
isfied with the plain unadorned white lambskin apron. 
The conditions of the London Masons were entirely 
different, and this caused them to view Freemasonry 
from a diverse standpoint to that of the York Masons. 
London increased vastly in population. It became a 
commercial centre. Enterprise sought it. Immigra- 
tion flowed there from every quarter, and every in- 
ducement existed for the encouragement of labor, 
trade, the arts, and enterprise of every description. 
This mixed and constantly increasing population 
eliminated different opinions and views on almost 
every subject, and it would have been strange if the 
craft had not been affected in some degree by the 
diverse opinions of differing nationalities on the sub- 
ject of Freemasonry. 

If Anderson had been true to himself, and published 
to the world the facts as they occurred, and all the 
particulars of motives, objects, influences, &c., so that 
a correct judgment could have been formed by the 
craft, it would not only have been more satisfactory. 


24 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


but much that was done might have been overlooked, 
even the revolutionary act of establishing an inde- 
# pendent Grand Lodge as a necessity growing out of 
the conditions as they existed. But Anderson and 
those desiring independence did not deem it expe- 
dient to publish the facts to the world. They are not 
only silent on every subject that would reveal their 
selfish and ambitious views and intentions, but they 
distort the existent facts by misrepresentation and 
false and deceptive statements, relying upon the char- 
acteristic reticence of the York Masons and the repu- 
tation of the author, Anderson, and the estimation in 
which the craft were held, that their version would 
not be controverted. There is a meanness in the in- 
tended inferences to be drawn in Anderson’s Consti- 
tutions discreditable to the Masonic institution, and 
disreputable to the author and all who sanctioned the 
publication. The revolutionists in 1717 only con- 
summated the object which the London Masons since 
the last half of the sixteenth century had in view, the 
throwing off their allegiance to the York Grand Lodge 
and establish an independent Masonic government. 
They had grown strong, Lodges and their membership 
had increased greatly; Masons from every country, 
coming to the metropolis on business or pleasure, 
visited their Lodges, and thus the London fraternity 
became widely known, and their acquaintance sought, 
which added greatly to their self-importance. They 
adopted every means to bring themselves into noto- 
riety, to render Masonry popular, and at every op- 
portunity manifested a disposition by encroachments 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 25 

and assumptive efforts to be a controlling power — 
an independent sovereignty. They assumed that the 
Light of Masonry only shone in their metropolis, 
that its rays radiated from that centre, and that the 
privilege to exercise the rights and franchises of Ma- 
sonry was solely vested in the London craft, in the 
Grand Lodge they had instituted. 

Institutions and associative organizations are of 
gradual growth. Far back in the ages the germinal 
elements are being formed. They have neither shape 
nor vitality in form. The elements aggregate as 
thought is eliminated, and in the centuries they as- 
sume some form, — crude, immature, disconnected, it 
is true, yet suited to the time and to the intelligence of 
the period. On a sudden, a living thought is elicited, 
as if by inspiration, from the interior perceptive fac- 
ulties — the intellect is illumined, and a spark from 
the brain, addressed in language adapted to the pop- 
ular sense, is accepted. A peaceful revolution or of 
violence may result, angry words from hasty indi- 
viduals of differing opinions may inflame unduly ex- 
cited minds, whilst the crude form of aggregating 
and aggregated elements is assuming a more perfect 
shape, and the germ in embryo is being formed. 

Thus institutions founded on beliefs, organized asso- 
ciations of every kind, governments, and the social 
systems of the world, have been formed. It is a use- 
less waste of time to seek the origin, the primal 
thoughts of any institution or organized association 
whatever. In regard to Freemasonry we know that 
it existed prior to 1567. In that year we have the 
3 


26 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


earliest (so far as we now know) manifestation of a 
movement by the London Masons to assume, or 
aspire to self-government by encroaching upon the 
rightful authority of the York Grand Lodge. Until 
1567, and subsequent, the supreme authority of the 
Grand Lodge at York was universally recognized by 
the craft, and, as Preston remarks, who was a member 
of one of the four London lodges which set up an in- 
dependent government in 17 17, “ To be ranked as de^ 
scendants of the original York Masons was the glory 
and boast of the brethren in almost every country 
where Masonry has been regularly established, and 
from the prevalence and universality of the idea that 
in the city of York Masonry was first authorized 
by charter, the Masons of England have received 
tribute from the first states in Europe.” This “ Grand 
Lodge was held in the highest veneration, and every 
Mason in the kingdom considered himself bound by 
the charges which originally sprung from that body.” 

In consequence of certain demands of the London 
Masons in 1567, a Grand Master was appointed for 
the South of England. Preston, in referring to this 
appointment, says : “Sir Thomas Sackville held the 
office of Grand Master from 1561 to 1567, when he 
resigned (Anderson says, Accordingly, when Grand 
Master Sackville demitted y A. d. 1567) in favor of Fran- 
cis Russel, Earl of Bedford, and Sir Thomas Gresham, 
an eminent merchant, distinguished for his abilities 
and great success in trade. To the former the care 
of the brethren in the northern part of the kingdom 
was assigned, while the latter was appointed to super - 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 2J 

intend the meetings in the South , where the Society 
had considerably increased, in consequence of the 
honorable report which had been made to the Queen. 
Notwithstanding this new appointment of a Grand 
Master for the South, the General Assembly continued 
to meet in the city of York , as heretofore , where all the 
records were kept; and to this Assembly appeals were 
made on every important occasion. We call special at- 
tention to this last clause, as we will* have to refer to 
it again, particularly the portion we have italicized. 

We have no means of knowing what the character 
of the demands were which impelled the York Grand 
Lodge to appoint a Grand Master for the South of 
England. They must have been of a grave nature to 
cause the Grand Lodge to comply in a matter of such 
moment affecting its rights and prerogatives. The ne- 
cessity for such an appointment may well be ques- 
tioned. There can be no doubt that the demands in- 
volved either a compliance or a rebellion against its au- 
thority. It was a seditious movement, a revolution- 
ary design. In reference to this movement, Preston 
wrote as follows : “ As the constitutions of the Eng- 
lish Lodges are derived from this General Assembly 
at York — as all Masons are bound to observe and 
preserve those in all time coming — and as there is 
no satisfactory proof that such assembly was ever 
regularly removed by the resolution of its members, 
but' that, on the contrary, the fraternity still continue 
to meet in that city under this appellation, it may re- 
main a doubt whether, while those constitutions exist 
as the standard of Masonic conduct, that Assembly 


28 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


may not justly claim the allegiance to which their 
original authority entitled them ; and whether any 
other convention of Masons, however great their 
consequence may be, can, consistently with those 
constitutions, withdraw their allegiance from that As- 
sembly, or set aside an authority to which not only 
antiquity , but the concurrent approbation of Masons for 
ages , under the most solemn engagements , have repeat- 
cdly given a sanction. 

“ It is to be regretted that the idea of superiority, 
and a wish to acquire absolute dominion , should occa- 
sion a contest among Masons. Were the principles 
of the Order better understood, and more generally 
practised, the intention of the institution would be 
more fully answered. Every Mason would consider 
his brother as his fellow, and he who, by generous 
and virtuous actions, could best promote the happi- 
ness of society, would always be most likely to receive 
homage and respect.” 

These two paragraphs Oliver has altogether omitted in 
his reprint of Preston’s “ Illustrations of Masonry.” 
We have no words to characterize the conduct of a man 
of his learning, of his position in society as a clergy- 
man, his relations to the Masonic fraternity, and enjoy- 
ing the world’s esteem as an honorable and truthful 
man, in deceiving the public by omitting in his reprint 
work, believed to be a verbatim copy, such portions 
which he knew would be to the detriment of his 
Grand Lodge and damaging to the character of his 
antecedent laborers in the vine’yard, Reverend Bros. 
Anderson, Desaguliers, &c. Tt was as reprehensible 
as it was dishonorable. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


2 9 


We commend the above-quoted paragraphs to the 
fraternity at the present time for the truly Masonic 
sentiments expressed in them, and for the clear allu- 
sions of the author in behalf of Truth to the rebel- 
lious spirit of the London Masons in forcing the York 
Grand Lodge to the alternative of either a renuncia- 
tion of its authority and the establishment of a sepa- 
rate Masonic government, or a compliance with their 
unrighteous demands. The Grand Lodge chose the 
latter for the sake of unity and harmony among 
the craft The York Masons were a long-suffering 
fraternity, and for the sake of peace and the honor 
and reputation of Masonry for many subsequent years, 
were obliged to submit to infractions of their rights 
by the London Masons, who, having gained the ap- 
pointment of a Grand Master, continued from time to 
time to make encroachments and usurp privileges 
without saying "by your leave, sir!' 

It must not be overlooked, as it is important to re- 
member, that, notwithstanding the appointment of a 
Grand Master for the South of England, that the 
Grand Lodge at York was acknowledged as the legal 
and supreme head of the institution, to which body 
the whole fraternity owed allegiance. And in con- 
nection with the subject we quote again from Preston, 
who was a member of the London Grand Lodge, and 
without departing from the truth or ignoring it alto- 
gether, as Anderson and Oliver have, he was some- 
what cautious in his remarks. He says: “There is 
every reason to believe that York was deemed the 
original seat of Masonic government in this country ; 

3 * 


30 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


as no other place has pretended to claim it, and as 
the whole fraternity have, at various times, universally 
acknowledged allegiance to the authority established 
ther£ ; but whether the present association in that 
city be entitled to that allegiance is a subject of in- 
quiry which it is not my province to investigate. To 
that Assembly recourse must be had for information. 
Thus much, however, is certain, that if a General 
Assembly or Grand Lodge was held there (of which 
there is little doubt, if we can rely on our records and 
constitution, as it is said to have existed there in 
Queen Elizabeth’s time), there is no evidence of its 
regular removal to any other place in the kingdom : 
and upon that ground the brethren at York may 
probably claim the privilege of associating in that 
character. A number of respectable meetings of the 
fraternity appear to have been convened at sundry 
times in different parts of England ; but we cannot 
find an instance on record, till a very late period, of 
a general meeting (so called) being held in any other 
place beside York.” 

There is a blank in the history of Masonry from 
1567 to 1603, excepting the statement of Anderson, 
that after Thomas Gresham “ Charles Howard, Lord 
of Effingham, was Grand Master in the South till 
1588, then George Hastings, Earl of Huntington, till 
the Queen died unmarried on 24 March, 1602-3.” 

From the year 1567, when a Grand Master was 
appointed for the South, the Grand Lodge at Y 4 ork is 
not mentioned by Anderson or Preston until after the 
Revolution of 1717. It Is entirely ignored, as if no 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 31 

such body of Masons had ever existed. There may 
have been such a case in the history of humanity as 
children so devoid of affection and all moral sense as 
to obliterate all evidence of their parents’ existence, 
or having existed, and effacing every trace by chang- 
ing their own names and denying their paternity as 
.well as their birthplace ; if so, it furnishes a parallel 
to the conduct of the London Masons for two centu- 
ries from the time of the appointment of Grand Mas- 
ter Gresham. And in strict conformity with their 
rebellious attempt at that time, in having secured the 
appointment which apparently satisfied them for a 
brief period only, as it appears from no mention being 
made that the Grand Lodge at York was not con- 
sulted, and had no voice in the selection of the two 
mentioned successors to Grand Master Gresham. 

The successor to Hastings was the celebrated Inigo 
Jones, who was under King James I. in 1603 chosen 
with the title “ Grand Master of England,” which 
tifle was continued to subsequent Grand Masters in 
the South. He, Inigo Jones, held Quarterly Com- 
munications of the Grand Lodge and the Annual 
General Assembly, and was annually re-cho*sen till 
1618. 

Here we find, in addition to the assumption of a 
prerogative pertaining solely to the York Grand 
Lodge, the London Masons usurping a title intended 
to convey the belief that no other Grand Lodge 
existed in England, which was a most wicked and 
malicious deception, a vile, dishonorable, and contemp- 
tibly mean resort to further their selfish, ambitious 


32 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


designs. The intention of assuming the title of Grand 
Master of England was to weaken the York Grand 
Lodge, and by continued efforts to drive it out of ex- 
istence, to absorb its membership, and thus possess 
complete supremacy throughout the whole of Eng- 
land. And in accord with the assumptions and de- 
signs of the London Masons, the Grand Master, Inigo 
Jones, commenced holding quarterly communications, 
the annual General Assembly, and constituting Lodges, 
which were all usurpations of prerogatives belonging 
solely and exclusively to their parent body, the Grand 
Lodge at York. We refer the reader to the preced- 
ing extracts from Preston as confirmatory of our 
statements in regard to the General Assembly being 
held at York, and on which subject Anderson is silent 
and purposely so in his omissions to notice the York 
Grand Lodge. 

William, Earl of Pembroke, succeeded Inigo Jones 
as Grand Master, and continued in office until 1630, 
when he demitted , as Anderson has it, and was suc- 
ceeded by Henry Danvers, Earl of Danby, — Pres- 
ton says, resigned in favor of Henry Danvers, Earl of 
Danby* who in 1633 was succeeded by Thomas How- 
ard, Earl of Arundel, who in 1635 was succeeded by 
Francis Russel, Earl of Bedford. In 1636 Inigo 
Jones was again chosen Grand Master, and continued 
in office, as Preston says, “till his death in 1646.” 
Anderson says: “Inigo Jones, aged 80 years, died 
at London, and was buried in St. Bennet’s Church 
at Paul’s wharf on 26 June, 1652.” With the dis- 
crepancy of dates we have no concern. It may be 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


33 


that the body lay in state' from 46 to 52, or was rein- 
terred in the latter year, as Anderson does not men- 
tion when he died, or one or the other is in error. 
Both Preston and Anderson are silent on the subject 
of Masonry from the decease of Inigo Jones until 
1663, except the following remarks by Preston : “The 
breaking out of the civil wars obstructed the progress 
of Masonry in England for some time; but after the 
Restoration, it began to revive under the patronage 
of Charles II., who had been received into the Order 
during his exile.” 

On the 27th of December, 1663, a General Assem- 
bly was held, at which Henry Jermyn, Earl of St. 
Albans, was chosen Grand Master, who appointed Sir 
John Denham his Deputy, and Sir Christopher Wren 
and John Webb, Grand Wardens. At this General 
Assembly, six Regulations were made in keeping with 
the sentiments we have expressed to abnegate the 
existence of their mother Grand Lodge, the Grand 
Lodge at York. The first of these Regulations is as 
follows : “ That no person, of what degree soever, 
be made or accepted a Freemason unless in a regular 
Lpdge, whereof one to be a Master or a Warden in 
that limit or division where such Lodge is kept, and 
another to be a Craftsman in the trade of Free- 
masonry.” Here we have the first mention of a regu- 
lar Lodge and associated with Master and Warden. 
The second : “ That no person hereafter shall be ac- 
cepted a Freemason, but such as are of able body, 
honest parentage, good reputation, and an observer 
of the laws of the land.” The third refers to “A 
C 


34 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Certificate of the time and place, to be brought of 
those accepted a Freemason from the Lodge that ac- 
cepted him, unto the Master who shall enroll the 
same, and give an account of all such acceptances at 
every General Assembly.” The fourth : “ That every 
person who is now a Freemason, shall bring to the 
Master a note of the time of his acceptation, to the 
end the same may be enrolled in such priority of 
place as the Brother deserves ; and that the company 
and fellows may the better know each other.” The 
fifth : “That for the future the said fraternity of Free- 
masons shall be regulated and governed by one Grand 
Master , and as many Wardens as the said society shall 
think fit to appoint at every General Assembly.” 
The sixth : “ That no person shall be accepted unless 
he be twenty-one years old or more.” 

The drift of these regulations can readily be under- 
stood, as well as their object and intent. The fifth 
regulation tells the whole story. The said fraternity 
of Fi'eemasons shall be regidated and governed by one 
Grand Master. There never was more than one 
Grand Master at one time in the South of England, 
from the time of the intended revolt in 1567; and as 
he held the title of Grand Master of England, the 
regulation must have intended “one Grand Master” 
for the whole of England. The scope of these regu- 
lations was to nonsuit , to use a legal phrase, the York 
Masons. They could have no other object than the 
non-recognition of those not under their jurisdiction, 
of which the “ certificate ” was the evidence and the 
“ note of acceptation.” 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 35 

Thomas Savage, Earl of Rivers, succeeded St. Al- 
bans as Master, June 24th, 1 666, who appointed 
Christopher Wren his Deputy. On the 2d of Septem- 
ber occurred the great fire in London, in the rebuild- 
ing of which Wren had such a prominent part. An- 
derson says, “After Grand Master Rivers demitted , 
1674, George Villars, Duke of Bucks, succeeded as 
Grand Master of England.” Preston wrote: “In 
1674 the Earl of Rivers resigned , and was succeeded 
by George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.” Does 
Anderson use the word demitted for resigned ? An- 
derson again writes, the Duke demitted 1679, and 
Preston says, resigned in favor of Henry Bennet, Earl 
of Arlington. The Earl of Arlington died in 1685, 
when “ the Lodges met and elected Sir Christopher 
Wren Grand Master, who had been continued Deputy 
Grand Master from his first appointment in 1666.” 
Sir Christopher Wren appears to have been the ac- 
tive mind of the fraternity from his first appointment, 
as he was useful in civil life after the great calamity, 
as the prince of architects of the time. He was fifty- 
three years of age when elected Grand Master. An- 
derson writes that “ He annually met those brethren 
who could attend him, to keep up good usages, till the 
Revolution .” During this period, Anderson says : “ Par- 
ticular Lodges were not so frequent, and mostly occa- 
sional in the South, except in or near the places where 
great works were carried on. Thus, Sir Robert Clay- 
ton got an occasional Lodge,” at Southwark, “ near 
which a stated Lodge continued long afterwards. 
Besides that, and the old Lodge of St. Paul’s, there 


36 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


was another at Piccadilly, one near Westminster 
Abbey, another near Covent Garden, one in Holborn, 
one on Tower Hill, and some more that assembled 
statedly.” 

In 1695, Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond and 
Lennox, was chosen Grand Master. “ Sir Christopher 
Wren was his Deputy Grand Master, who acted as 
before at the head of the craft, and was again chosen 
Grand Master, a. d. 1698.” We have been quoting 
Anderson. Preston says, “ Grand Master Wren con- 
tinued at the head of the fraternity till the death of 
the King, 1702.” Anderson, writing of 1707, says: 
“ Yet still in the South the Lodges were more and 
more disused, partly by the neglect of the Masters and 
Wardens, and partly by not having a Noble Grand 
Master at London , and the annual Assembly was not 
duly attended.” Here we have a hint reflecting upon 
the want of attention to the craft by Sir Christopher 
Wren, who certainly had few peers in that age. In 
1708, Anderson still calls him Grand Master Wren, 
when he erected the cross on the top of the cupola 
of St. Paul’s. And in the next paragraph Anderson 
continues : “ Some few years after this, Sir Christo- 
pher Wren neglected the office of Grand Master, yet 
the old Lodge near St. Paul’s and a few more con- 
tinued their stated meetings till Queen Anne died, 
1714.” Now we come to the Revolution consum- 
mated by the London Masons in 1717, which Ander- 
son, 1738 Const., inaugurates as follows: 

“ King George I. entered London most magnifi- 
cently on 20th Sept., 1714, and after the rebellion 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 37 

was over, a. d. 1716, the few Lodges at London, find- 
ing themselves neglected by Sir Christopher Wren, 
thought fit to cement under a Grand Master as the 
center of union and harmony, viz., the Lodges that 
met 

“ I. At the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house, in St. 
Paul’s Churchyard; 

“2. At the Crown Ale-house, in Parker’s Lane, 
near Drury- Lane ; 

/ “3. At the Apple-Tree Tavern, in Charles Street, 

Covent Garden ; 

“4. At the Rummer and Grapes Tavern, in Chan- 
nel Row, Westminster. 

“ They and some old Brothers met at the said Apple- 
Tree, and having put into the chair the oldest Master 
Mason (now the Master of a Lodge), they constituted 
themselves a Grand Lodge pro tempore in due form, 
and forthwith revived the Quarterly Communication 
of the officers of Lodges (called the Grand Lodge), 
resolved to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast, 
and then to choose a Grand Master from among them- 
selves till they should have the honor of a Noble 
Brother at their head. 

“ Accordingly, on St. John Baptist’s day, in the 
third year of King George I., A. d. 1717, the Assembly 
and Feast of the Free and Accepted Masons was held 
at the foresaid Goose and Gridiron Ale-house. Be- 
fore dinner, the oldest Master Mason (now the Master 
of a Lodge) in the chair, proposed a list of proper 
candidates ; and the brethren by a majority of hands 
elected Mr. Antony Sayer, gentleman, Grand Master 

4 


38 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


of Masons, who being forthwith invested with the 
badges of office and power by the said oldest Master, 
and installed, was duly congratulated by the Assem- 
bly who paid him the homage.” 

We make the following comments on the above 
narration of Anderson, whose Book of Constitutions 
was authorized to be published by order of the London 
Grand Lodge in 1738. After having been submitted 
to a committee of the Grand Officers, and having it 
three years under consideration, its publication was 
ordered, with the approbation of the Grand Officers 
printed in it, “ as the only Book of Constitutions for 
the use of the Lodges of the Free and Accepted Ma- 
sons, &c.” Taking fully into consideration the state 
of society in the early part of the last century, the 
reader can have no high opinion of London Free- 
masonry at the period referred to, nor of the moral 
status of the craft, according to the places at which 
the four Lodges held their meetings, and the place 
where the Grand Master was chosen and installed. 
These were fitting places to concoct and consummate 
revolution by persons congregating at such haunts. 
But the questions arise, 1st, Were there only four 
Lodges in London at that time ? 2d, By what author- 
ity were these Lodges constituted? 3d, Who were 
those “ some old Brothers”? 4th, And how many of 
them? 5th, Did Masonry indeed decline in conse- 
quence of being neglected by Grand Master Wren ? 

• The first four questions we will hereafter consider. 
In regard to the fifth we observe that in 1707 Ander- 
son says : “ In the South the Lodges were more and 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 39 

more disused, partly by the neglect of the Masters and 
Wardens , and partly by not having a Noble Grand 
Master at London.” The intimation here is very 
plain that it was in consequence of the lukewarmness 
of the Masters and Wardens that Lodges declined, 
or “ disused,” as Anderson has it, the cause for which 
we will hereafter revert to. The not having a Noble 
Grand Master had nothing to do with the decline of 
Lodges or want of interest on the part of the Masters 
and Wardens. A Royal Grand Master could not 
compel the Masters and Wardens to attend their 
Lodges if they felt no interest in the institution. Sir 
Christopher Wren was Grand Master at that time, 
.1707, was a member of Parliament, and represented 
several boroughs, active and in full vigor of his powers. 
Neither the attendance at Lodges nor any proper in- 
terest in Masonry, depends upon a Grand Master. In 
this age of concentrated powers in Grand Lodges 
and Grand Masters, no particular interest is infused 
into the Institution through them. The subordinate 
Lodges alone possess the vital power to keep the in- 
stitution alive, and without Grand Masters and Grand 
Lodges Masonry would flourish as well as with them, 
and perhaps retain more of its cosmopolitan character 
than at the present. 

The inference attached to G. M. Wren of neglect 
is most malicious. Did the Masters and Wardens 
need the promptings of the Grand Master to urge 
them to discharge their Masonic duties ? If they 
were indifferent to the affairs of Masonry, to their 
obligations, and had no inclination to attend Lodge 


40 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


meetings, the Grand Master could not be censurable 
therefor; and if they did need his promptings to in- 
fluence them to discharge their duties, they were 
worse than dead Masons, and in their pretentious 
connection with the fraternity bringing dishonor and 
disgrace upon the institution. When Lodges die out 
because of non-attendance of the members at their 
meetings for lack of interest in Masonry, the conclu- 
sion must be the material of such Lodges must have 
been too imperfect originally to be worked into the 
Masonic temple. Of such material mainly seems to 
have been the London craft for two centuries from 
the appointment of the first Grand Master, in 1567. 

Grand Master Wren died in 1723, aged ninety-one 
years. He was in active public life till 1713 at least. 
The purity of his life was never tarnished, and with 
the exception of Anderson, no reflection was ever 
cast upon his fair fame. But it is preposterous to 
suppose that the prosperity of the Masonic institution 
or its success depended exclusively on a single indi- 
vidual, however exalted, intelligent, or indefatigable* 
in his attentions. Anderson would have us believe 
that because G. M. Wren, after having passed his 
threescore and ten years, neglected the craft, and 
in consequence the Lodges died out ; but it appears 
he was continued Grand Master up to the revolution, 
1717, and yet the Lodges had it in their power at any 
time to choose another Grand Master if Sir Christo- 
pher had indeed neglected the fraternity. Under any 
aspect of the case, the conclusion must be arrived at, 
the fault must have been in the material of which the 
London craft was composed. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 41 

The history of the London Masons, which we have 
only briefly noticed, we have extracted mainly from 
Anderson’s Constitutions, 1738 ed. But as he was 
one of the revolutionists, and an active promoter of 
the revolution, and a participator in the formation of 
the new Grand Lodge in London, his historical state- 
ments must be taken with all due allowances, to pre- 
sent as plausible an account as possible favorable to 
the revolution, the apparent necessity for the move- 
ment, and the omitting of any allusions to the exist- 
ence of other Masonic bodies in England, by im- 
pressing his readers with the belief that none such 
did exist. And as Anderson does not mention any 
difficulties among the craft, or contrariety of opinions 
between them, the natural deduction is, that unity, 
harmony, and brotherly love prevailed, and that a 
united fraternity existed throughout England. 

We have for many years entertained the belief that 
Anderson was not truthful, that the rose-colored view 
of the conditions as stated by him was fictitious, that 
he did not state matters as they really existed, and 
that if in his manuscript he had mentioned or only 
alluded to the existence of Lodges holding under the 
York Grand Lodge, or differences of opinions and 
feelings of opposition among the members of the 
“four (London) Lodges” and those “old Brothers,” 
the Grand Officers and the Grand Lodge would have 
caused a line to be drawn over the writing, as being 
detrimental to the new organization. But Anderson 
understood the position too well to commit to writing 
aught that might even seemingly be prejudicial to the 

4* 


42 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


revolutionary movement, or that might be so consid- 
ered by posterity. 

As to our question, “ Were there only four Lodges 
in London at that time?”' at the revolution in 1717. 
Admitting only for a moment the statement of An- 
derson to be true, London did not embrace the whole 
of the South of England ; and as many Lodges had 
been constituted in the South during the prior one 
hundred and fifty years, why did riot a single one 
participate in the revolution ? Had they no informa- 
tion of the contemplated movement ? Had they no 
notice of the contemplated formation of a Grand 
Lodge? There is no mention of any other Lodges 
being represented than the four London Lodges. 
The revolutionary movement seems to have been a 
coup d'etat movement, suddenly sprung upon the craft 
by Anderson, Desaguliers, Payne, and some of the 
leading Masons in London. That there were other 
Lodges in London and other parts of the South of 
England there can be no doubt ; and even some hold- 
ing under the York Grand Lodge. The silence of 
Anderson in regard to York Masons may satisfy 
some, who “ swear by him,” that that body did not 
exist. We will see hereafter. 

In addition to “ some old Brothers ” who met with 
the four Lodges at the Apple-Tree Tavern, Anderson 
mentions on the next page, “ Now several old Broth- 
ers that had neglected the craft visited the Lodges.” 
Those old Brothers visiting the Lodges to our view 
has a suspicious look. The meagre statement, with- 
out names, or how many of them, or from whence 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


43 


they hailed, seems to give an imaginary aspect to the 
two statements, or the statements, if true, would imply 
that there were many of such brothers, and, conse- 
quently, Lodges in which they were made ; and it is 
possible, too, that those old brothers were prompted 
more by curiosity than anything else. But that there 
were Masons in London at the time of the revolution 
who did not assent to the formation of the new Grand 
Lodge, and also some York Masons who would not 
participate, there can be little doubt. 

Wm. Sandys, F. A. S., P. M. Grand Master’s Lodge, 
wrote a work, published in London in 1829, by Crew 
& Spencer, entitled, “A Short View of the History 
of Freemasons,” dedicated to the Grand Lodge, in 
which he mentions that “in the beginning of the reign 
of George the First, an unfortunate schism arose in 
the Society in consequence of Sir Christopher Wren 
— who was then about ninety years of age and una- 
ble to attend to any active duties of the craft — having 
been superseded in his office of Surveyor of Buildings 
to the King by Mr. William Benson, under whose di- 
rection the generality of Master. Masons in London re- 
fused to meet ; and the country Lodges , especially at 
York and in Scotland , kept inviolate the Ancient Land- 
marks, &c ., of the Order!' (See Hyneman’s Masonic 
Library, vol. i. p. 739.) The above extract from the 
intelligent author is clearly to the point in his refer- 
ence to a schism among the craft, and corroborates 
our statement that there were other Lodges and Ma- 
sons in London that had no part in the formation of 
the new Grand Lodge, and both Anderson and Pres- 
ton imply as much. 


44 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Preliminary to a continuation of the subject, we 
will briefly state right here our views of the real cause 
of the difficulties, the reference to illegal assemblies 
of Masons in subsequent years, of Lodges not meet- 
ing, of the erasure of Lodges, of all the statements 
of irregularities among the craft, of inferred infringe- 
ments, in fact, of all and everything that gave seem- 
ing offence or rather annoyance to the London Grand 
Lodge referred to by Anderson, Entick, Blaney, and 
Preston, the latter mainly echoing the statements of 
the former in the interest of his own Lodge, which 
was one of the four Lodges which formed the London 
Grand Lodge. 

The real cause was, that there were Lodges and 
Masons in London holding their allegiance to the York 
Grand Lodge that woidd not countenance nor acknowl- 
edge the new London Grand Lodge. There was no ac- 
tual schism in 1738, as Anderson , Preston , and recent 
writers assume. The object of the revolutionary 
body was to stigmatize those who would not come 
under its authority, and such as had left it for its in- 
novating tendencies, and preferred their connection 
with the original Masonic body, the York Grand 
Lodge. It was the successors of these who , in 1813, 
formed the union with the London Grand Lodge. 
There was no third Grand Lodge formed in England 
out of those Lodges which for good and sufficient 
reasons remained true to their allegiance to the York 
Grand Lodge, nor of those who left the London 
Grand Lodge. The story of a third Grand Lodge is 
wholly mythical. The object in making it appear 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 45 

that the Lodges which severed their connection with 
the London Grand Lodge had formed themselves 
into a Grand Lodge, was to be consistent with the 
original design of the London Masons, to keep out 
of view altogether the York Grand Lodge, to sup- 
press all information of such a Masonic Body being 
in existence. We now return again to Anderson, and 
in our future remarks will corroborate the above. 

The title given to Mr. Antony Sayer, Gentleman, 
chosen Grand Master in 1717, was “GRAND MAS- 
TER OF MASONS,” not, as heretofore, “ of England,” 
and this title was continued to subsequent Grand Mas- 
ters down to near the union, 1813. The assumption 
of that title, in contradistinction to the title of prior 
Grand Masters, will be obvious as in keeping with 
their un-Masonic designs. The election of that Gen- 
tleman “by a majority of hands,” is sufficiently sig- 
nificant. Why elect by a show of hands ? is a perti- 
nent inquiry. It was not unanimous. What was the 
majority? and who were the other candidates ? G. 
M. Sayer issued a summons in which he “ commanded 
the Masters and Wardens of Lodges to meet the 
Grand Officers every Quarter in Communication.” 
The issuing of an imperative summons does not 
speak well for the fidelity of the craft who inaugu- 
rated the revolution. The second Grand Master of 
Masons, George Payne, Esq., 1718, “recommended 
the strict observance of the Quarterly Communica- 
tion,” which was a milder course. But as showing 
that the fraternity were not well versed in the ancient 
usages* of Masonry, he “ desired any Brethren to 


46 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


bring to the Grand Lodge any old writings and re- 
cords concerning Masons and Masonry, in order to 
shew the usages of antient times.” We can well 
smile at the observations of Lawrence Dermott in 
his Ahiman Rezon on the subject of the kind of 
Masonry worked by these early revolutioners. 

John Theophilus Desaguliers, LL.D. and F.R.S., 
was the third Grand Master. He “ revived the old 
regular and peculiar Toasts or Healths of the Free 
Masons.” The Rev. Dr. Desaguliers, like his Rev. 
Bro. Anderson, must have been fond of the socialities 
of the festive board, and may have originated the 
ceremonies observed at what is called the Table 
Lodge. No doubt John and James, the two boon- 
companions, were regular attendants at such Lodge 
occasions, and one or the other inspired, as it were, 
called forth from the soul-stirring influences of the 
festivities at the “ feast,” on the occasion of Bro. De- 
saguliers’ installation as Grand Master, the peculiar 
toasts or healths of the Freemasons. And here we 
have again “several old Brothers that had neglected the 
Craft, visited the Lodges.” Anderson does not say 
where they hailed from, what Lodge, how many. They 
were visitors, and had neglected the craft, and adds, 
“ Some Noblemen were also made Brothers.” What 
are we to understand by the word “ also ” ? Was it 
to give the reader to understand that these “ old 
Brothers ” had affiliated with a Lodge under their 
jurisdiction ? Why use the word at all ? And Ander- 
son remarks : “ Now several old Brothers, that had 
neglected the Craft, visited the Lodges ; some -Noble- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 47 

men were also made Brothers, and more new Lodges 
were constituted.” 

“ George Payne, Esq., again Grand Master of Ma- 
sons, 1720, was the fourth in succession.” Ander- 
son reports that this year some “ very valuable manu- 
scripts (for they had nothing yet in print), concerning 
the fraternity, were burned by some scrupulous 
Brothers, that those papers might not fall into strange 
hands.” 

John, Duke of Montagu, 1721, was the fifth G. M. 
He “ and the Lodge finding fault with all the copies 
of the old Gothic Constitutions , ordered, September 29, 

1721, Brother James Anderson, A. M., to digest the 
same in a new and better method .” Fourteen learned 
Brothers were appointed, Dec. 27, to examine the 
manuscript and to make report. On March 25th, 

1722, the ‘‘Committee of fourteen reported they had 
perused the manuscript, viz., The History, Charges, 
Regulations and Master’s Song, and after some 
amendments had approved of it; upon which the 
Lodge desired the G. M. to order it to be printed.” 
“ Grand Master Montagu’s good government inclined 
the better sort to continue him in the Chair another 
year; and therefore they delayed to prepare the 
feast.” “ But Philip, Duke of Wharton, lately made 
a Brother, tho’ not the Master of a Lodge, being am- 
bitious of the Chair, got a number of others to meet 
him at Stationers’ Hall, 24 June, 1722, and having no 
Grand Officers, they put in the*chair the oldest Mas- 
ter Mason, (who was not the present Master of a 
Lodge, also irregular,) and without the usual decent 


48 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


ceremonials, the said old Mason proclaimed aloud, 

* Philip Wharton, Duke of Wharton, Grand Master 
of Masons ! ’ Therefore the noble Brothers and all 
those that would not countenance irregularities, dis- 
owned Wharton’s authority, till worthy Brother Mon- 
tagu healed the breach of harmony, by summoning 
the Grand Lodge to meet, 17 January, 1723, when 
the Duke of Wharton, promising to be true and 
faithful, D. G. M. Beal proclaimed Philip Wharton, 
Duke of Wharton, Grand Master of Masons.” 

At this meeting, “Anderson produced the new 
Book of Constitutions, now in print, which was again 
approved, with the addition of the antient manner (?) 
of constituting a Lodge!' The Wharton episode is 
briefly stated by Anderson as we have written it, but 
that there was trouble “ in the camp,” and much un- 
told more than was printed, there can be no doubt. 
We pass over the successions of Grand Masters con- 
tained in Anderson’s 1738 Constitutions, also the 
Proceedings had in Grand Lodge, as the whole work 
is reprinted in Second Volume of our Masonic Library , 
pp. 527-693. We will only notice the authority for 
publication. Grand Lodge, 24 February, 1735. 

“ Brother Anderson, Author of the Book of Constitu- 
tions, representing that a new edition was become 
necessary, and that he had prepared materials for it, 
the Grand Master and the Lodge ordered him to lay 
the same before the present and former Grand Offi- 
cers, that they may report their opinion to the Grand 
Lodge.” Grand Lodge, January 25, 1738, “approved % 
of this New Book of Constitutions, and ordered the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 49 

author, Brother Anderson, to print the same with the 
addition of the new Regulation IX.” 

Preston, immediately following the choice of John, 
Duke of Montagu,' as Grand Master of Masons, has 
the following extended notice of the York Grand 
Lodge : 

“ While Masonry was spreading its influence over 
the Southern part of the kingdom, it was not neg- 
lected in the North. The General Assembly, or Grand 
Lodge at York, continued to meet regularly as here- 
tofore. In 1705, under the direction of Sir George 
Tempest, bart., then Grand Master, several Lodges 
met, and many worthy brethren were initiated in 
York and its neighborhood. Sir George being suc- 
ceeded by the Right Plon. Robert Benson, Lord 
Mayor of York, a number of meetings of the fra- 
ternity was held at different times in that city, and 
the grand feast during his Mastership is said to have 
been very brilliant. Sir William Robinson, bart., 
succeeded Mr. Benson in the office of Grand Master, 
and the fraternity seem to have considerably in- 
creased in the North under his auspices. He was 
succeeded by Sir Walter Hawkesworth, bart., who 
governed the Society with great credit. At the ex- 
piration of his Mastership, Sir George Tempest was 
elected a second time Grand Master; and from the 
time of his election in 1714 to 1725, the Grand Lodge 
continued regularly to assemble in York under the 
direction of Charles Fairfax, Esq., Sir Walter Hawkes- 
worth, bart., Edward Bell, Esq., Charles Bathurst, 
Esq., Edward Thompson, Esq., M. P., John Johnson, 
5 D 


50 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


M. D., and John Marsden, Esq., all of whom, in rota- 
tion, during the above period regularly filled the office 
of Grand Master in the North of England.” 

[We believe that nothing can be more conclusive 
than that the York Grand Lodge continued its exist- 
ence after the revolution of the London Masons in 
forming an independent Grand Lodge ; and as it ex- 
isted at the time of the revolution, 1717, the London 
Masons had no excuse nor justification for their re- 
bellion ; and to charge the decline of the Lodges to 
Sir Christopher Wren, and as justifying them in their 
rebellion to the constitutional Masonic Grand Lodge, 
was a contemptible and malicious evasion of the truth, 
purposely intended to intimate that there was no gov- 
erning Masonic body in England, that the York Grand 
Lodge had ceased to exist, and therefore the necessity 
of forming a Grand Lodge for themselves. The York 
Grand Lodge in 1567 gave permission to the London 
Masons to select a Grand Master for the South of 
England, and there is no evidence that its consent 
was not renewed on future occasions, when necessary, 
in consequence of the Grand Master demitting, de- 
clining the office, or in case of death, until Sir Chris- 
topher Wren was chosen Grand Master, in 1698, and 
who was continued in office until the London Masons 
set up a Grand Lodge for themselves without the 
consent of their mother Grand Lodge at York.] 

“ From this account, which is autlmiticated by the 
books of the Grand Lodge in York , it appears that the 
revival of Masonry in the South of England did not 
interfere with the proceedings of the fraternity in the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 51 

North. For a series of years the most perfect har- 
mony subsisted between the two Grand Lodges, and 
private Lodges flourished in both parts of the king- 
dom under their separate jurisdiction. The only dis- 
tinction which the Grand Lodge in the North appears 
to have retained after the revival of Masonry in the - 
South, is in the title which they claim, viz., The 
Grand Lodge of all England; while the Grand 
Lodge in the South passes only under the denomina- 
tion of The Grand Lodge of England. The latter, on 
account of its situation, being encouraged by some 
of the principal nobility, soon acquired consequence 
and reputation ; while the former, restricted to fewer 
though not less respectable members, seemed gradu- 
ally to decline. Till within these few years, however, 
the authority of the Grand Lodge in York has never 
been challenged; on the contrary, every Mason in 
the kingdom has always held it in the highest ven- 
eration, and considered himself bound by the charges 
which originally sprung from that assembly. To be 
ranked as descendants of the original York Masons 
was the glory and boast of the brethren in almost 
every country where Masonry has been regularly 
established ; and from the prevalence and universality 
of the idea that in the city of York Masonry was first 
authorized by charter, the Masons of England have 
received tribute from the first states in Europe. It is 
much to be regretted that any separate interests 
should have destroyed the social intercourse of Ma- 
sons ; but it is no less remarkable than true, that the 
brethren in the North and those in the South are now 


52 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


in a manner unknown to each other. Notwithstand- 
ing the pitch of eminence and splendor at which the 
Grand Lodge in London has arrived , neither the Lodges 
of Scotland nor Ireland court its correspondence. This 
unfortunate circumstance has been attributed to the 
introduction of a few modern innovations among the 
Lodges in the South. To remove this prejudice, the 
Grand Lodge have resolved to resume the original prac- 
tices of the society, and have instituted a Lodge of 
Promulgation for the more regular diffusion of the art. 
They have also established a friendly intercourse with 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland, which is now under 
the banner of His Royal Highness the Prince of 
Wales. As to the coolness which has subsisted be- 
tween the Grand Lodge in York and the Grand 
Lodge in London, another reason is assigned. A few 
brethren at York having on some trivial occasion 
seceded from their ancient Lodge, they applied to 
London for a warrant of constitution ; and without 
inquiry into the merits of the case, their application 
was honored. Instead of being recommended to the 
mother Lodge to be restored to favor, these brethren 
were encouraged in their revolt, and permitted, under 
the banner of the Grand Lodge in London, to open 
a new Lodge in the city of York itself. This un- 
guarded act justly offended the Grand Lodge of York, 
and occasioned a breach which time and a proper at- 
tention to the rules of the Order only can repair.” 

Preston is the only authority that the York Grand 
Lodge ever claimed, much less “retained” the title 
of “The Grand Lodge of all England.” All that 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. * 53 

Preston has written in regard to the distinctive titles 
of the York and London Grand Lodges is the mere 
imagination of his own brain, to give interest to his 
book. His ‘"illustrations” can only be considered in 
the light of being illustrated with fanciful conceptions 
of his own mind, and intermixed with Anderson’s 
relations without regard to times or concurrent events. 
As in regard to Anderson, so the fraternity have re- 
ceived the statements of Preston, which he originated 
in other important matters as well as in the distinc- 
tion of the titles of the two Grand Lodges as verita- 
ble truths ; and these have not only been repeatedly 
quoted, but many a theory has been founded upon 
the imaginary creations of Preston, and outwrought 
in histories and other - works on Masonry. Why 
Preston calls it the Grand Lodge in the North, and 
why make a local distinction North and South, are 
questions not easily answered. Neither Anderson nor 
Entick make these distinctions in referring to the 
Grand Lodges. 

It is to be regretted that Preston- mixes up events 
more than threescore years apart in this otherwise 
valuable reference to the York Grand Lodge. The 
Lodge of Promulgation was appointed in 1809, a few 
years prior to the union which took place in 1813. 
The friendly intercourse with the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland commenced in 1806, and the granting a war- 
rant of constitution to seceders at York must have 
been in 1738, when the Earl of Crawford was Grand 
Master. If Preston had not been biassed or influenced 
to write in the unsatisfactory manner he has, by the 
5 * 


54 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


London Grand Lodge, with the intent to confuse the 
reader, he would have given us the current events in 
the order in which they occurred. But the interest of 
the Grand Lodge had to be subserved, and that was 
more important to the London Masons than to be 
faithful to truth. 

The interesting and important matter contained in 
the said extract needs no excuse for its length. It 
must, however, always be borne in mind that Preston 
was a member of the Lodge of Antiquity, and wrote 
chiefly in the interest of the London Grand Lodge, 
which will account for his use of terms modifying to 
an extent the intolerant, illiberal, un-Masonic acts of 
the London Grand Lodge, as the introduction of a 
“ few modern innovations among the Lodges in the 
South,” as if the Grand Lodge did not authorize those 
innovations ; and simply “ a few modern ,” as if of no 
material importance, when every intelligent and 
“booked up” Mason knows that some of these inno- 
vations embraced alterations and changes in the secret 
work, in contravention of Masonic obligations, as 
well as the mode of recognition and examination. 
The intent of these innovations was to prevent the 
York Masons from visiting their Lodges; but it was 
soon discovered that did not answer the purpose, as 
some of the London Masons fraternized with the 
York Masons, and some came under the York 
banner. 

Again, “ a fezv brethren seceded from their ancient 
Lodge,” should have been, were expelled , But Pres- 
ton has in the above extract given much for consid- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


55 


eration and reflection, and to a correct understanding, 
so far as the circumstances permitted, of the active 
existence of the York Grand Lodge in 1705 and on- 
ward, and the causes of coolness between it and the 
London Grand Lodge, provoked by the latter by its 
malicious, aggressive, un-Masonic invasion of the 
rights and jurisdiction of their Mother Grand Lodge. 
There are no words in any language that can prop- 
erly express the flagrant enormity of the conduct of 
the London Grand Lodge in a moral or Masonic point 
of view, especially if we consider, that, notwithstand- 
ing the aggressive acts of the London Grand Lodge 
for a century and a half prior, and its revolutionary 
act in establishing an independent Grand Lodge, the 
York Grand Lodge displayed a most Masonic and 
fraternal policy in giving no umbrage and not notic- 
ing the grossly un-Masonic course pursued by the 
London Masons. 

In 1734, Earl Crawford Grand Master, Preston re- 
ports the following proceedings of the London Grand 
Lodge. “A few resolutions also passed respecting 
illegal conventions of Masons, at which it was reported 
many persons had been initiated into Masonry on 
small and unworthy considerations.” Anderson does 
not mention this, neither Entick, (1756 ed., Const.) 
Preston no doubt copied from the Grand Lodge 
Records. We have already stated that these so-called 
“illegal conventions of Masons” by the London 
craft, were regular bodies of Masons holding under the 
York Grand Lodge , and were called illegal because 
they would not affiliate with the London Grand 


56 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Lodge. The making Masons “ on small and un- 
worthy considerations ” was an addenda made to give 
color to the reports which were doubtless imaginary. 

We now invite attention to the following para- 
graph which immediately follows the above brief ex- 
tract, and which is neither in Anderson’s nor Entick’s 
Books of Constitutions : “The Earl of Crawford seems 
to have made another encroachment on the jurisdic- 
tion of the Grand Lodge in the City of York, by con- 
stituting two Lodges within their districts, and by 
granting, without their consent, three deputations, 
one for Lancashire, a second for Durham, and a third 
for Northumberland. This circumstance the Grand 
Lodge in York highly resented, and ever after seems 
to have viewed the proceedings of the brethren in 
the South with a jealous eye; as all friendly inter- 
course ceased, and the York Masons from that mo- 
ment considered^ their interests distinct from the 
Masons under the Grand Lodge in London.” Pres- 
ton has a note to this paragraph as follows : 

“ In confirmation of the above fact, I shall here in- 
sert a paragraph copied from the Book of Constitu- 
tions published in 1738. After inserting a list of 
Provincial Grand Masters appointed for different 
places abroad, it is thus expressed: ‘All these for- 
eign Lodges are under the patronage of our Grand 
Master of England ; but the old Lodge at York city, 
and the Lodges of Scotland, Ireland, France, and 
Italy, affecting independency , are under their own 
Grand Masters ; though they have the same constitu- 
tions, charges, regulations, &c., for substance, with 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


5 7 


their brethren of England, and are equally zealous 
for the Augustan stile, and the secrets of the ancient 
and honorable Fraternity.’ ” (Hyneman’s Masonic 
Library, vol. ii., p. 676.) 

In the whole course of our life we have never seen 
so great an outrage upon the common-sense of the 
reading world as the intent embraced in the last para- 
graph taken from Anderson’s Constitutions, 1738 ed. 
The very essence of malice is contained in the two 
words we have italicized ; they manifest in their de- 
signed sense the constituent principles that animated 
the London revolutionists. There could be no 
greater manifestation of the most intense malignity, 
of expression of seeming power, as if they alone pos- 
sessed the sole authority of Masonic government on 
this little planet. The York Grand Lodge, the Mother 
of Masonry in England, affecting independency ! be- 
cause, and because only, it gave no formal recognition 
to the revolutionary body, would not acknowledge it 
as an independent Grand Lodge, or, as a legally 
constituted one ; would not go contrary to its fair 
fame, its antecedent history, by giving even the faintest 
color of seeming recognition to an un-Masonic or ille- 
gal act. To force out of existence the York Grand 
Lodge by any and all possible, fair or unfair, means, 
was the object and aim of the London Masons. That 
body stood in the way of the London Masons, who 
aimed to possess entire control of Masonry in England. 
It must be remembered that Anderson’s Constitutions, 
of which the above paragraph forms a part, was not 
only approved by the former and present Grand Offi- 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


58 

cers, but also by the Grand Lodge at a Grand Com- 
munication, and its sanction given as printed in the 
Book. Therefore Anderson was not alone in the 
publication of that arrogant and malicious paragraph, 
but the whole of the Grand Officers and members of 
the Grand Lodge were responsible for the unpro- 
voked, dishonorable, and untruthful statements. The 
only Grand Lodge assuming or affecting independency 
was the London Grand Lodge, which object the 
London Masons had in view all the years from 1567 
down to the revolution 1717. But the arrogance of 
including Scotland , Ireland , France , and Italy , is of so 
insolent and impudent a character, that, if it were not 
of so serious a nature, we could smile at the bold 
effrontery in stating such audacious falsehoods. 

On the 27th of April, 1738, the Marquis of Carnar- 
von was installed Grand Master of Masons. Preston 
observed that “ two deputations for the office of Pro- 
vincial Grand Master were granted by his lordship, 
one for the Caribbee Islands, and the other for the 
West Riding of Yorkshire. This latter appointment 
was considered as a third encroachment on the juris- 
diction of the Grand Lodge in York, and so widened 
the original breach between the brethren in the North 
and the South of England, that from henceforward 
all future correspondence between the Grand Lodges to- 
tally ceased I 

It is well to remember the closing remark made by 
Preston in this quotation : “ From henceforward all 
future correspondence between the Grand Lodges to- 
tally ceased.” This was in 1738. It would seem that 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


59 


prior to this invasion of the jurisdiction of the York 
Grand Lodge, there was a correspondence kept up 
between the two Grand Lodges, notwithstanding the 
prior encroachments of the London Masons and their 
violations of Masonic comity, of Masonic principles, 
and rights of jurisdiction. As all correspondence 
then totally ceased, it became very convenient after- 
wards for the London Masons, including Preston, to 
erase the word York from their vocabulary, and in- 
stead of Ancient York Masons, which was the proffer 
title, although not mentioned in any of the books of 
the London Masons, they dropped the name Y ork, and, 
as we will see further on, called those who seceded 
from them and affiliated with the York Lodges, An- 
cient Masons,” as well as the York Lodges, Lodges 
of Ancient Masons, or Ancients, the object of which 
will be revealed hereafter in making it appear that 
the Ancients formed a Grand Lodge. Hence we find 
the London Grand Lodge all through its future trans- 
actions animadverting against that body and stigma- 
tizing it and its members as illegal, because they did 
not work under its Constitution. But it will be seen 
towards, the close of this book, that the union was 
formed through the unbiassed intelligence of the 
Prince of Wales, Grand Patron of Masons with the 
“ Free and Accepted Masons of England, according 
to the old institutions who were the Ancient York 
Masons. 

So far, we have followed Preston to the close of 
Anderson’s Constitutions, 1738 edition, and purpose 
following Preston further on, as Entick’s Book of 


6o 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Constitutions is written in the same meagre and un- 
satisfactory evasive style of Anderson, and gives us 
little information aside from successions of Grand 
Masters and accompanying ceremonials. We will, 
however, have to recur to Anderson again and also 
to Entick. 

About the close of Carnarvon’s term as Grand Mas- 
ter, Preston reports as follows : “ Some disagreeable 
altercations arose in the Society about this period. A 
number of dissatisfied brethren having separated them- 
selves from the regular lodges, held meetings in dif- 
ferent places for the purpose of initiating persons 
into Masonry, contrary to the laws of the Grand 
Lodge. These seceding brethren taking advantage 
of the breach which had been made in the friendly 
intercourse between the Grand Lodges of London 
and York, on being censured for their conduct, im- 
mediately assumed at their irregular meetings, with- 
out authority, the character of York Masons. Mea- 
sures were adopted to check them, which stopped their 
progress for some time ; but taking advantage of the 
general murmur spread abroad on account of some inno- 
vations that had been introduced , and which seemed to 
authorize an omission of, and a variation in the an- 
cient ceremonies, they rose again into notice. This 
imprudent measure of the regular lodges offended 
many old Masons, but through the mediation of John 
Ward, Esq., afterwards lord viscount Dudley and 
Ward, matters were accommodated, and the brethren 
seemingly reconciled. This, however, proved only a 
temporary suspension of hostilities, for the flame 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


6 1 


soon broke out again, and gave rise to commotions 
which afterwards materially interrupted the peace of 
the Society.” 

[The paragraph just quoted is evidence that perfect 
harmony did not exist among the craft under the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge. Preston cleverly makes it appear 
that it was the seceding London Masons who held 
meetings for the purpose of initiating persons con- 
trary to the laws of their Grand Lodge, and who as - 
sinned the character of York Masons. The perver- 
sion of truth was in uniform accord with all the 
statements of the Masons under the London Grand 
Lodge in regard to the disaffected among their own 
members who affiliated with the York Lodges. Their 
whole aim and purpose was to ignore the existence 
of Ancient York Masons and Masonry, and to sup- 
press by all possible means the fact that York 
Lodges were established, held meetings, and made 
Masons according to regular warrants of Constitution, 
or by legal and rightful authority. The efforts of 
Preston were in conformity with those of Anderson, 
and in appearance plausible, so that the superficial 
readers were easily deceived. The investigating 
mind, however, will remember Preston’s own state- 
ments, copied from the Records, that the York Grand 
Lodge was an active body of Masons, and its Lodges 
and members in high repute. The measures adopted 
by the London Grand Lodge, “ which stopped their 
progress for some time,” and the “ temporary suspen- 
sion of hostilities,” was well enough to state to give 
a color of relief as if the writer was unbiassed in 
6 


62 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


reference to the seceding members assuming the char- 
acter of York Masons. There was no need of assum- 
ing. The York Masons had a better reputation, a 
clearer and truer Masonic record, than the London 
Masons, and therefore the members dissatisfied with 
the conduct of the London Masons would naturally 
go over and affiliate with the York Masons.] 

“ Lord Raymond succeeded the Marquis of Car- 
narvon in May, 1739, and under his Lordship’s auspices 
the Lodges were numerous and respectable. Notwith- 
standing the flourishing state of the society, irregular- 
ities continued to prevail , and several worthy brethren , 
still adverse to the encroachments on the established sys- 
tem of the institution , seemed to be highly disgusted 
at the proceedings of the regular Lodges. Com- 
plaints were preferred at every succeeding committee, 
and the communications fully employed in adjusting 
differences and reconciling animosities. More seces- 
sions taking place, it became necessary to pass votes 
of censure on the most refractory, and enact laws to 
discourage irregular associations of the fraternity. 
This brought the power of the Grand Lodge in ques- 
tion ; and in opposition to the laws which had been 
established in that assembly, Lodges were formed 
without any legal warrant, and persons initiated into 
Masonry for small and unworthy considerations. To 
disappoint the views of these deluded brethren, and 
to distinguish the persons initiated by them , the Grand 
Lodge readily acqidesced in the imprudent measures 
which the regular Masons had adopted — measures 
which even the urgency of the case could not war- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 63 

rant. Though this had the intended effect, it gave 
rise to a new subterfuge. The brethren who had 
seceded from the regular Lodges immediately an- 
nounced independency, and assumed the appellation 
of ancient Masons. They propagated an opinion that 
the ancient tenets and practices of Masonry were 
preserved by them, and that the regular Lodges, be- 
ing composed of modem Masons, had adopted new 
plans, and were not to be considered as acting under 
the old establishment. To counteract the regulations 
of the Grand Lodge, they instituted a New ■ Grand 
Lodge in London , professedly on the ancient system, 
and contrary to their duty as Masons, under that as- 
sumed banner constituted several new Lodges in 
opposition to the regular established authority. These 
irregular proceedings they pretended to justify under 
the feigned sanction of the Ancie?it York Constitution, 
and many gentlemen of reputation being deceived by 
this artifice, were introduced among them, so that 
their Lodges daily increased. Without authority 
from the Grand Lodge in York, or from any other 
established power in Masonry, these refractory breth- 
ren persevered in the measures they had adopted, 
formed committees, held communications, and even 
appointed annual feasts. Under the false appellation 
of the York banner, they gained the countenance of 
the Scotch and Irish Masons, who, placing implicit 
confidence in the representations made to them, 
heartily joined in condemning the measures of the 
regular Lodges in London, as tending in their opin- 
ion to introduce novelties into the society, and to 


6 4 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


subvert the original plan of the institution. The 
irregular Masons in London having thus acquired a 
nominal establishment, noblemen of both kingdoms, 
unacquainted with the origin of the separation, hon- 
ored them with their patronage, and some respectable 
names and Lodges were added to their list. [Of late 
years , however, the fallacy has been fully detected by 
the active diligence of a few zealous brethren, and 
they have not been so successful : several of their best 
members have deserted them, and many Lodges re- 
nounced their banner, who have come under the pa- 
tronage of the Grand Lodge of England. It is much 
to be wished that a general union among all the Ma- 
sons in the kingdom could be effected; and we are 
now happy to hear that such a measure is likely soon 
to be accomplished, through the mediation of a noble 
Brother who ranks high in the estimation of the 
brethren, and now fills, the first office in the Grand 
Lodge of England under his royal highness the 
Prince of Wales.”] — {Masonic Library , vol. i. pp. 363, 
364.) The paragraph in brackets is not in Olivers 
Reprint of Preston, but in the London twelfth ed., 
1812, p. 244. 

Here we find “ irregularities continued to prevail , and 
several worthy brethren still adverse” became “highly 
disgusted” at the “encroachments on the established 
system of the institution.” These “ irregularities ” were 
among the Masons under the London Grand Lodge. 
The encroaclimejits must have been of a serious nature 
to disgust worthy brethren. What the encroachments 
were on the established system, no writer has informed 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 65 

us. We only know the irregularities prevailed among 
the London Lodges. It was those worthy brethren 
who, highly disgusted, left their Lodges and joined 
the York Masons, whom the London Masons stigma- 
tized as seceders. We cannot wonder that the Lon- 
don craft were largely infected with disgust at the 
continued encroachments, and that therefore there 
were constant complaints, and that the communica- 
tions of the Grand Lodge were “ fully employed in 
adjusting differences and reconciling animosities.” 
How the Grand Lodge succeeded in its efforts in 
harmonizing its own members and reconciling those 
opposed to its encroachments on the established sys- 
tem is manifest in more secessions taking place. The 
Grand Lodge then found it necessary to take some 
action. It passed votes of censure and enacted laws 
to discourage irregular associations ; but all this ef- 
fected nothing; they were dead enactments; those 
whom it intended to reach were no longer under its 
jurisdiction. But Preston, copying Anderson, En- 
tick & Co., goes on in the same old strain, the often 
repeated tale over again, of Lodges formed without 
legal warrants, persons initiated contrary to the laws, 
for small and unworthy considerations, &c., all refer- 
ring to Ancient York Lodges regularly constituted 
and their members. 

If we view the action of the London Grand Lodge 
as taken from Preston, from a true Masonic stand- 
point, without bias or being deceived by the specious 
inferences of the writer, no other conclusion can be 
come to than that the “ altercations,” “ general mur- 
6* E 


66 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


mur,” “ dissatisfied brethren having separated them- 
selves,” &c., were caused by the Innovations of the 
London Masons in the secret signs and tokens, which 
justly “offended many 'old Masons” who united with 
Lodges holding under the jurisdiction of the York 
Grand Lodge, of which, no doubt, more or less were 
established long prior to the revolution of the London 
Masons in 1717, and who continued their regular 
meetings down to and subsequent to 1739, when the 
occurrences mentioned took place. It is a wicked 
assumption that the Lodges held meetings and ini- 
tiated persons into Masonry, and without authority 
assumed the character of York Masons. The “ irreg- 
ularities” mentioned to attach odium. to those worthy 
brethren adverse to the encroachments on the estab- 
lished system of the institution by the London Grand 
Lodge, were sufficient to “ highly disgust ” true and 
“ worthy brethren,” and good cause for leaving an 
organization guilty of the criminal offence of violating 
their obligations in changing the secret work of Ma- 
sonry. The “ irregularities ” were all on the side of 
the London Masons ; they were the originators of 
them, of innovations, encroachments, aggressions, 
and seceding from the established system of Masonry ; 
and it was not only the duty but obligatory on those 
“ worthy brethren,” as Masons, to leave that organiza- 
tion. They would not have been true to the institu- 
tion, to themselves, to their covenants, if they had 
only in appearance, by continuing their relations, 
given the semblance of acquiescence to their unlawful 
proceedings. It was no wonder that “ more seces- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


6 / 


sions took place/’ and that “lodges were formed 
without any legal warrant” from the London Grand 
Lodge. As to the “enacting laws to discourage ir- 
regular associations of the Fraternity,” we will show 
in the course of these reviews that those irregular 
associations , as they are conveniently termed by the 
London Grand Lodge, were regular bodies of York 
Masons which the London Grand Lodge, with all 
its powers, penal enactments, stringent regulations, 
changing the modes of recognition, and studied efforts 
to defame and attach stigma to, could not get the 
York Masons nor their own members, who in disgust 
left them and affiliated with the York Masons, to rec- 
ognize the irregularities, innovations, and infractions 
of the established system of Masonry by the London 
craft. The specious reasoning employed to make it 
appear that the associations referred to were irregular 
is too glaringly inconsistent not to be noticed by the 
intelligent reader. Of course, the London Masons 
would insist that the “ lodges were formed without 
legal warrants,” because they did not emanate from 
their own Grand Lodge. The statement that “ the 
Grand Lodge readily acquiesced in the imprudent 
measures which the regular Masons had adopted,” 
was a mean evasion of truth to make it appear that 
the changes made “ to distinguish the persons initiated 
by them ” did not originate with the Grand Lodge. 
It must have originated in the governing body, or 
else it would have taken prompt measures to prevent 
so gross an offence as the violation of most solemn 
obligations binding upon all Masons. That was a 


68 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


measure of expediency which none but the most vile 
and corrupt would be guilty of. We do not believe 
that the “ imprudent measures” adopted by the Grand 
Lodge “had the intended effect.” The statement was 
made to make it appear that the independency de- 
clared and assuming the appellation of ancient Masons 
resulted in those brethren instituting “ a new Grand 
Lodge.” Entick, who published the Constitutions in 
1756, does not mention the establishment of a new 
Grand Lodge. We will soon examine Entick, and 
copy what he reports on the subject of the “Ancient 
Masons.” 

We remind the reader of what we have written in 
foregoing pages in regard to the formation of the 
London Grand Lodge, the prior encroachments of 
the London Masons, and usurpations of the prerog- 
atives inherent in the Grand Lodge at York, and the 
subsequent acts of violations of Masonic comity and 
persistent silence as to the existence of the legitimate 
Mother Grand Lodge from which they derived their 
original Masonic Constitutions and Masonic estab- 
lishment. We need not repeat that the London 
Grand Lodge was formed without authority, without 
precedent, and simply by “ assuming independency.” 
It did not therefore become it, even if its declara- 
tions of “ irregular associations ” were true, which 
they were not, in casting odium and untruthful 
reflections upon “ worthy brethren ” and their as- 
sociates for declaring their independency and 
assuming the distinctive title “ Ancient Masons ,” a 
title they always possessed. The appellation “ Mod- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


69 

ern Masons,” the London Masons by their conduct 
seemed to court. They appeared to desire to abro- 
gate all ancient Masonry, its laws, customs, usages, 
and its fundamental principles, and therefore the 
title Modern Masons was rightly given them. We 
„ had the subject of difference explained to us a third 
of a century ago by the intelligent Mason Z. A. 
Davis, whilst conferring the degrees on us. At pres- 
ent little is said and less known of the history, origin, 
or cause of the different titles applied to Masons, 
but in teaching and examination, Ancient York Ma- 
sons is the term still in use in most jurisdictions. 
But that the London Masons merited the title of 
modern there can be no question. It is a gratuitous 
assertion that the York Masons in London instituted 
a new Grand Lodge at London. The sovereign 
body existed at York, it had Lodges established in 
many places in England as well as at London, and 
many Masons made under the jurisdiction of the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge left and came under the banner of 
the York Masons. It was not a new Grand Lodge 
established at London, although, in consequence of 
the increase of Lodges and members, authority may 
have been given to execute some of the functions of 
a Grand Lodge, as District or Provincial, by the 
Grand Lodge of York. It is in the light of these 
remarks the above statements must be read. 

Preston in his qualified statement, “ they instituted 
a new Grand Lodge in London, professedly on the 
Ancient system,” 'subsequently remarks in same para- 
graph : “The irregular Masons in London having thus 


70 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


acquired a nominal establishment, noblemen of both 
kingdoms unacquainted with the origin of separation, 
honored them with their patronage,” &c. That fully 
agrees with our views that no third Grand Lodge was 
formed in England. Neither Entick nor Blaney men- 
tion such an organization. Preston’s remarks refer 
to 1739. Both Entick and Blaney only speak of An- 
cient Masons in 1754, and in no other place. As we 
have already quoted the whole paragraph, we here 
remark that Preston relies too much upon the sup- 
posed ignorance of the noblemen of both kingdoms, 
Scotland and Ireland, of being unacquainted with the 
origin of what he calls the separation. There is in- 
genuity and deceit in Preston’s remarks. The nomi- 
nal establishment was, as we have intimated, a regu- 
lar appointment by the York Grand Lodge, as sub- 
sequent remarks will prove. And the fallacy detected 
in the same paragraph did not change the views of the 
Scots and Irish Masons, as it was more than sixty 
years afterwards before they entered into correspond- 
ence with the London Masons. Preston is better 
authority than Anderson, Entick, or Oliver, although 
an independent judgment should be formed, making 
due allowance for the influences surrounding Preston 
during his Masonic life. It would seem to be impos- 
ing upon the intelligence or credulity of readers to 
believe that “ worthy brethren,” “ many gentlemen of 
reputation,” and “the Scots and Irish Masons,” could 
be deceived by any representations made, which, if 
not true, could be readily ascertained as being so 
near home. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 71 

In continuation of the London Grand Lodge, the 
“ Earl of Kintore succeeded Lord Raymond as Grand 
Master, 1740, and in imitation of his predecessor, 
continued to discourage irregularities.” The Earl of 
Morton succeeded as Grand Master, 1741. Lord 
Ward succeeded the Earl of Morton as Grand Mas- 
ter, April 27, 1742, who “lost no time in applying ef- 
fectual remedies to reconcile the animosities which 
prevailed.” “ Many lodges, which were in a declin- 
ing state, by his advice, coalesced with others in better 
circumstances ; some, which had been negligent in 
their attendance on the Communications, after proper 
admonitions, were restored to favor; and others, 
which persevered in their contumacy, were erased out 
of the list.” Lord Ward was continued Grand Mas- 
ter two years. “ The unanimity and harmony of the 
lodges seemed to be perfectly restored under his lord- 
ship’s administration.” “ He was succeeded by the 
Earl of Strathmore.” “ Lord Cranstoun was elected 
Grand Master in April, 1745, and presided over the 
Fraternity with great reputation two years. Under 
his auspices Masonry flourished.” “Lord Byron suc- 
ceeded 1747, and was Grand Master five years. Lord 
Carysford succeeded as Grand Master 1752, and 
served two years. The Marquis of Carnarvon suc- 
ceeded as Grand Master 1754. He ordered the Book 
of Constitutions to be reprinted. Soon after his elec- 
tion, the Grand Lodge took into consideration a com- 
plaint against certain brethren for assembling with- 
out any legal authority, under the denomination of 
Ancient Masons ) and who as such considered them- 


7 2 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


selves independent of the Society, and not subject to 
the laws of the Grand Lodge, or to the control of the 
Grand Master. Dr. Manningham, the Deputy Grand 
Master, pointed out the necessity of discouraging 
such meetings, as being contrary to the laws of the 
Society, and openly subversive of the allegiance due 
the Grand Master. On this representation the Grand 
Lodge resolved, that the meeting of any brethren 
under the denomination of Masons, other than as 
brethren of the ancient and honorable Society of 
Free and Accepted Masons, established upon the uni- 
versal system, is inconsistent with the honour and in- 
terest of the Craft, and a high insult on the Grand 
Master and the whole body of Masons. In conse- 
quence of this resolution, fourteen brethren, who are 
members of a lodge held at the Ben Johnson’s head, 
in Pelham street, Spitalfields, were expelled the So- 
ciety, and the lodge was ordered to be erased out of 
the list.” Preston says : “ No preceding Grand Mas- 
ter granted so many provincial deputations "as the 
Marquis of Carnarvon. On the 7th of October, 1755, 
his lordship appointed a Provincial Grand Master for 
Durham, and soon after a very respectable lodge was 
constituted at Sunderland, under his lordship’s au- 
spices.” 

The fuss and bluster of Dr. Manningham, and the 
adoption of a resolution against the Ancient Masons, 
“ who as such considered themselves independent of 
the society and not subject to the laws of the Grand 
Lodge,” eventuated, all in the same paragraph, in 
expelling fourteen members and the erasure of the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 73 

Lodge out of the list. The Lodge therefore consisted 
of only fourteen members. Here Preston makes Dr. 
Manningham give the title of “the ancient and honor- 
able Society of the Free and Accepted Masons estab- 
lished upon the Universal system,” to the London 
Body. Entick does not give that title, hence Preston 
interpolated. The transactions took place in 1755, 
and Entick’s Book of Constitutions was published in 
1756. Entick does not say how many were expelled, 
only that Lodge No. 94 “be erased out of the Book of 
Lodges.” The name and place of meeting of that 
Lodge is not in Anderson’s list published in 1738. 
The No. 94 of Anderson was constituted August 24, 
1737, and met at the Gun Tavern in Jermyn Street, 
St. James. Entick’s No. 94 met at the Ben Johnson’s 
Head in Pelham Street, Spital-Fields. Who can re- 
concile these differences ? One or the other or both 
must be false. Entick, however, would not mention 
the small number of members of that Lodge, or the 
Grand Lodge would not permit him. But is not the 
whole statement of the action and resolution of the 
Grand Lodge a fabrication made up for effect ? And 
did not Preston interpolate to make the false statement 
seem probable? In adding to the title, Preston falsi- 
fied himself, according to extracts in previous pages. 
He well knew that the London Grand Lodge did not 
apply the word Ancient to its title, and he also knew 
that it was not “ established upon the Universal sys- 
tem.” But believing that if there was any truth in 
the statements of Entick, that Lodge No. 94 was 
erased out of the list, it could not have been a Lodge 
7 


74 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


constituted by the London Grand Lodge, and there- 
fore was not under its jurisdiction. The remarks, 
then, that the “Ancient Masons, who, as such, .con- 
sider themselves as independent of this Society, and 
not subject to our Laws, or to the Authority of our 
Grand Master,” were simply gratuitous, of no effect, 
not applicable to the Lodge or its members who were 
not under its Constitutions, owed it no allegiance, 
were not bound by its Laws, and not subject to the 
Authority of its Grand Master. The reader cannot 
fail to perceive that in all the notices of the London 
Grand Lodge of irregular Masons, of expulsions and 
erasures of Lodges, there was an object persistently 
kept in view, to ignore the existence of the York 
Grand Lodge, of Lodges under its authority, and to 
hold out the inference that it was the only legal Ma- 
sonic authority existing in the kingdom. 

We now turn to Entick’s Constitutions, commenc- 
ing from the close of Anderson’s Constitutions, and 
note only such matters as pertain to our subject. 

Grand Lodge, June 30, 1739. Lord Raymond, 
Grand Master. They “ proceeded to examine a com- 
plaint exhibited against certain Brethren, suspected 
of being concerned in an irregular making of Masons ; 
but did not go through with this inquiry, it being 
postponed to some other opportunity.” 

Grand Lodge, December 12, 1739. “And Having 
finished their inquiry into the irregularities com- 
plained of at the last Communication, and pardoned 
the transgressors, upon their submission and promises 
of future good behaviour, it was Ordered, That the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


75 


laws be strictly put in execution against all such 
brethren as shall for the future countenance, connive, 
or assist at any irregular makings.” 

Grand Lodge, June, 1740. Earl of Kintore, Grand 
Master. “ Three of the late Stewards were com- 
plained of for being present and assisting at irregular 
makings.” 

Grand Lodge, June 24, 1742. Lord Ward, Grand 
Master. “ The Master of the Turk’s Head Lodge in 
Greek street, Soho, acquainted the Grand Master, 
that, as the said Lodge was greatly declined, he and 
the members had joined the King’s Arms Lodge No. 
38, held at the Cannon, Charing Cross; and that by 
consent of the said Turk’s Head Lodge, he did sur- 
render the Constitution thereof to his Worship. For 
which they were much applauded by the Grand 
Master, as worthy of example, where Lodges were in 
a declining irretrievable state. Ordered, That the 
lodge No. 37, at the Angel and Crown, in White- 
chapel; No. 60, at the Vine, in Long Acre; No. 161, 
at the Swan, on Fish Street Hill, be erased out of the 
list, and be no longer esteemed regular lodges, for 
not attending the Grand Master in Quarterly Com- 
munications pursuant to several notices sent them 
respectively.” 

Grand Lodge, February 8, 1743. ‘‘Were highly 
satisfied with the conduct of the Lodge No. 47, held 
at the Rose in Cheapside, who, finding their state in 
great decline, had joined themselves to the Swan and 
Rummer, and surrendered their Constitution to the 
Grand Master at the' Communication.” 


;6 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Grand Lodge, April 9, 1743. “ Ordered, That the 
lodges No. 40, at the Globe, in Fleet street; No. 45, 
at the Globe, in the Strand ; No. 59, at the Castle, in 
St. Giles; No. 80, at the Three Tuns, in Grosvenor 
street; No. 145, at the Three Tuns and Half Moon, 
on Snow Hill; No. 156, at the Red Lion, in Red 
Lion street; No. 165, at the Flower Pot, in Bishops- 
gate street, should be immediately erased out of the 
list of regular lodges, for not attending the Grand 
Master in Quarterly Communication, pursuant to 
several notices sent them respectively.” 

Grand Lodge, April 4, 1744. “Ordered, That the 
lodges, No. 7, at the King’s Arms, Temple Bar, No. 
39, at the Mitre, in King street, Westminster, should 
be immediately erased out of the list of regular lodges 
for not obeying the summons of the Grand Master 
to attend him in Quarterly Communication.” 

Grand Lodge, February 26, 1745. Earl of Strath- 
more, Grand Master. “ The Master and Wardens of 
Lodge 185, lately held at the Three Tuns in Hough- 
ton street, Clare Market, surrendered their Constitu- 
tion to the Grand Master; the Brethren having 
agreed to join the lodge No. 102 at the Magpye and 
Horse-shoe, in Hollis street, near Clare Market.” 

Grand Lodge, March 25, 1745. “ It was Ordered, 

That the following lodges, not attending according 
to the summons sent by order of the last Quarterly 
Communication, should be erazed out of the Book of 
Lodges, viz.: No. 3, the Crown, behind the Royal Ex- 
change ; No. 9, the King’s Arms, in New Bond street, 
(subsequently restored;) No. 17, the Sun, in Holborn; 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


77 


No. 19, the Vine, in Long Acre; No. 2 6, Forrest’s 
Coffee-house, Charing Cross; No. 146, the King’s 
Head, in the Old Jewry; No. 159, the Gloucester 
Lodge, at the Cannon, Charing Cross; No. 173, the 
British Coffee-house, Charing Cross.” 

Grand Lodge, November 21, 1745. Lord Crans- 
toun, Grand Master. Ordered, The twelve following 
lodges to be erased out of the Book of Lodges, they 
not having attended the Grand Master at the General 
Meetings of the Society, nor regularly met so as to 
be summoned for some years, viz.: No. 15, the Bed- 
ford Arms, in Covent Garden; No. 16, the Bear and 
Rummer, in Gerard street, Soho; No. 25, the Dog, 
in St. James’ Market ; No. 48, the Royal Oak, in Earl 
street, Seven Dials ; No. 54, the George, in St. Mary 
Axe, (subsequently restored;) No. 79, the King’s 
Head, in St. Paul’s Church-yard; No. 107, the Foun- 
tain, on Snow Hill; No. 112, the Horn and Dolphin, 
in Crutched Friars; No. 142, the White Horse, in 
Piccadilly; No. 160, the Horn and Feathers, in Doc- 
tors’ Commons; No. 17 1, the Standard, in Leicester 
Fields; No, 155, the Mansion House, near the Steel- 
yard, in Thames street.” 

Grand Lodge, April 14, 1746. “Ordered, That 
the four following lodges be erazed out of the Book 
of Lodges for non-attendance, according to the order 
of the last Quarterly Communication, viz.: No. 33, 
the Sash and Cocoa-Tree, in Moorfields; No. 88, the 
Hoop and Griffin, in Leadenhall street; No. 140, the 
King’s Arms, in Cateaton street; No. 153, the Foun- 
tain, in Bartholomew Lane.” 

7 * 


73 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Grand Lodge, December 22, 1748. Lord Byron, 
Grand Master. “ Ordered, That the Lodges No. 41, at 
Mount’s Coffee-house, in Grosvenor street ; No. 70, 
at the Salutation, in Newgate street ; No. 83, at the 
Sun, in Ludgate street; No. 125, at Ashley’s London 
Punch-house; No. 143, at the Swan, in Southwark, 
be erazed out of the Book of Lodges for non-attend- 
ance, when summoned by order of the Grand Master 
to meet him in Quarterly Communication. The 
Lodge held at the White Bear, in old Broad street, 
having declined, the Master, by the consent of the 
other members, surrendered the Constitution into the 
hands of the Grand Master.” 

Grand Lodge, November 30, 1752. Baron of 
Carysfort, Grand Master. “ It was ordered, That the 
Lodges No. 89, at the Angel and Crown, near St. 
Agnes le Clare, in Hoxton ; No. 90, at the Royal 
Vineyard, in St. James’ Park; No. 106, at Forrest’s 
Coffee-house, Charing Cross, be erazed out of the 
Book of Lodges, they not having attended the Quar- 
terly Communications, or other meetings of the So- 
ciety, or paid any charity for upwards of five years 
past.” 

Grand Lodge, June 27, 1754. James Brydges, 
Marquis of Carnarvon, Grand Master. “They took 
into consideration the state of the. country lodges; 
and it was Resolved, That each Brother should, ac- 
cording to his opportunity, make the utmost enquiry 
touching the meetings and conduct of said lodges, 
and give proper intimations thereof to the next Quar- 
terly Communication. And that such of those lodges, 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 79 

of which no satisfactory account could be then given, 
should be erazed from the Book of Lodges.” 

Grand Lodge, November 29, 1754. “Ordered. 
That the following twenty-one lodges, having neither 
contributed to the general fund of charity, nor other- 
wise had any communication with the Grand Lodge, 
nor even met for several years, according to the best 
information that could be obtained, be erazed out of 
the Book of Regular Lodges, viz.: No. 32, Red Lion, 
at Congleton, in Cheshire ; No. 42, King’s Head, at 
Salford, near Manchester; No. 46, Woolpack, at 
Warwick ; No. 52, Three Tuns, at Scarborough ; No. 
57, St. Rook’s Hill, near Chichester; No. 58, Red 
Lion, at Canterbury ; No. 64, George, at Northamp- 
ton ; No. 71, Fleece, at Bury St. Edmunds; No. 77, 
Bell and Dove, at Woolverhampton ; No. 86, New 
Inn, at Exeter; No. 96, Seven Stars, at Bury St. Ed- 
munds; No. 1 19, Mason’s Arms, at Oswestree ; No. 
1 2 1, Lord Weymouth’s Arms, at Warminster; No. 
128, Fountain, at Shrewsbury; No. 130, Three 
Crowns, at Weymouth ; No. 141, Horn, at Braintree; 
No. 15 1, Angel above Hill, in the Bailiwick of Lin- 
coln; No. 152, Swan and Dove, at Hereford; No. 
163, Swan at Tewksbury; No. 175, Black Bull, at 
Spalding.” Entick only names twenty lodges. 

Grand Lodge, March 20, 1755. “The Grand 
Lodge then took into consideration a complaint 
against certain Brethren for forming and assembling 
under the denomination of a lodge o {Ancient Masons , 
who, as such, consider themselves as independent of 
this Society, and not subject to our Laws, or to the 


8o 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Authority of our Grand Master. When the Deputy 
Grand Master took notice of the great necessity 
there was to discourage all such meetings, not only 
as the same were contrary to our laws, and a great 
insult on the Grand Master, and the whole body of 
Free and Accepted Masons : But as they likewise 
tended to introduce into the Craft the novelties and 
conceits of opinionative persons, and to create a be- 
lief that there have been other Societies of Masons 
more ancient than that of this ancient and honorable 
Society.” 

The complaint here made against certain brethren 
can only cause a smile at its continued repetition and 
the futility of all such efforts as the Grand Lodge 
had made against Masons who owed it no allegiance. 
Especially so and ridiculous in the extreme when it 
asserts that they “consider themselves as independent 
of this Society, not subject to our laws or to the 
authority of our Grand Master.” They consider them- 
selves, — of course they had a right to judge for them- 
selves, why not? Did the Grand Lodge want to 
exercise judgment for them? Such an assumption 
of arrogance and presumption might be exercised 
upon bondmen or such as possess no gleam of intel- 
ligence, but not upon Masons. They were not sub- 
ject to their laws nor authority, and yet they want to 
compel them to come under their authority, but they 
considered for themselves and did n’t. But the Dep- 
uty Grand Master rises to the height of arrogant 
effrontery. What ! to doubt that this Society, formed 
in 1717, is not the most ancient body of Masons! 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 8l 

What assurance, to “ create a belief that there have 
been other Societies of Masons more ancient than that 
of this ancient and honorable Society.” The author 
of that striking declaration was the celebrated Dr. 
Manningham, and made before the London Grand 
Lodge, March 20, 1755. Preston, with better knowl- 
edge, omits the last quotation, although he copies 
nearly the whole article. We might extend our 
remarks on the adoption of the resolution offered, 
but we forbear. 

“And, the question being put, That the meeting 
of any Brethren of this Society, as, or under any de- 
nomination of Masons, other than as Brethren of this 
our ancient and honourable Society of Free and Ac- 
cepted Masons, is inconsistent with the honour and 
interests of the Craft, and a high insult on our Grand 
Master, and the whole body of Masons : It was car- 
ried in the affirmative ; one (?) of the Brethren com- 
plained of, only dissenting. The Deputy Grand 
Master, in his great clemency, then moved, That the 
consideration of the irregular proceedings of the said 
Brethren might be postponed till next Quarterly 
Communication, hoping that a thorough sense of 
their misconduct, and a determination not to be 
guilty of the like for the future, would then appear 
and reconcile them to the Grand Lodge.” 

Grand Lodge, July 24, 1755. “Ordered, That the 
Brethren complained of at the last Quarterly Com- 
munication, persisting in their disobedience to the 
determination of the Grand Lodge, their Lodge No. 
94, held at the Ben Johnson’s Head, in Pelham street, 
F 


82 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Spital-Fields, be erazed from the Book of Lodges ; 
and that such of the Brethren thereof, who shall con- 
tinue those irregular meetings, be not admitted as 
visitors in any Lodge.” Here closes Entick’s 1756 
ed. of the Book of Constitutions. A remarkable 
feature to be noticed is the large number of Lodges 
erased from the Book of Lodges, their peculiar names 
indicating the places of meeting and the surrounding 
associations. 

In all the notices of complaints of “ irregular meet- 
ings of Brethren,” “of irregular lodges,” and the pro- 
ceedings of the Grand Lodge, there is no mention of 
a new Grand Lodge established by the Ancient Ma- 
sons in either Anderson’s, Entick’s, or Blaney’s 1767 
Constitutions. Preston is the only authority, and he 
only mentions in 1739, “ They instituted a new Grand 
Lodge in London, professedly on the ancient system.” 
There would seem to be a doubt in the above state- 
ment of Preston. Besides Oliver, who wrote nearly 
one hundred years afterwards, and reprinted Preston, 
and the above remark, there is no authority for the 
assertion that there was a third Grand Lodge instituted 
in England ; certainly none in any authorized Grand 
Lodge publication. There is frequent mention of 
“ irregular meetings,” “ irregular lodges,” “ irregular 
Masons ” and “ Brethren,” but not of a new Grand 
Lodge; and the Grand Lodge at York could not have 
been meant, as that body was in existence before the 
London Grand Lodge was formed. Besides, Preston, 
whenever the York Grand Lodge is mentioned by 
him, he does not mention it in connection with ir- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 83 

regular Lodges or Masons. The intention of the 
London Grand Lodge was to make it appear that 
those irregular Lodges, so called, were isolated assem- 
blages under no regular Masonic authority. We re- 
assert that all those Masons and assemblages under 
the ban of the London Grand Lodge as “ irregular,” 
were Lodges and Masons under the jurisdiction of the 
York Grand Lodge, were regular made Masons, and 
were made in Lodges regularly constituted. We deny 
that there is any authentic proof to the contrary, or 
any proof whatever, of authority, that a new Grand 
Lodge was instituted in England after the irregular 
Grand Lodge was formed in London in 1717. We have 
the best evidence, and confirmatory of our views, 
that those so-called irregular meetings were Lodges 
of York Masons, in the fact that the irregular body 
formed in 1717 does not mention or refer to the 
Grand Lodge at York from whence they as Masons 
originally derived their authority, and which was in 
existence at that time, except the false and malicious 
statement of Anderson in its “ affecting independen- 
cy,” — calling it, “ the old Lodge at York City ,” under 
the heading of “ Deputations sent beyond Sea,” thus 
placing it out of the jurisdiction o'f England, and for ♦ 
no other purpose than to deceive and mislead. 

The Anderson Constitutions will not bear close 
criticism. Why place the old York Lodge under the 
caption of deputations beyo?id the Sea ? Why men- 
tion it under the deputations at all ? Why call it the 
old Lodge at York City? These are pertinent ques- 
tions; and the only inferences to be drawn from An- 


s 4 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


derson’s inserting the paragraph already quoted, and 
including Scotland, Ireland, France, and Italy in con- 
nection with the old Lodge at York City under the 
heading referred to, was the intention to mislead the 
reader and represent that there was no Grand Lodge 
at York City. 

Anderson publishes, in the 1738 Constitutions, “ A 
List of the Lodges in and about London and West- 
minster,” numbering from one consecutive to one hundred 
and six, giving the names, “ Signs of the Houses” 
where meeting, “ Dates of Constitution,” and “ Days 
of Forming,” and has the following observations : 
“ Many Lodges have by accident broken up, or are 
partitioned, or else removed to new places for their 
conveniency, and so, if subsisting, they are called and 
known by those new places or their signs. But the 
subsisting Lodges, whose officers have attended the 
Grand Lodge or Quarterly Communication, and 
brought their benevolence to the Grand Charity with- 
in twelve months past, are here set down according to 
seniority of Constitution , as in the Grand Lodge Books 
and the engraven list.” (See Masonic Library , pp. 
669-672, vol. ii.) 

* It would seem, from the numbering, names, dates 
of Constitution taken from the Books of the Grand 
Lodge and the engraven list, — which engraven list was 
renewed annually with their removals, — that there 
could not possibly be an error, and that reference to 
it would be conclusive authority. In, however, com- 
paring Entick’s “ List *of Regular Lodges according 
to their Seniority and Constitution, by order of the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


85 


Grand Master,” we find so wide a difference as to 
cause the gravest doubts of the correctness and relia- 
bility of both constitutions. Entick has up to the 
close of 1738 only 101 Lodges, Anderson 106. There 
are but 8 Lodges of the whole number in Entick 
which agree with Anderson, yet these two lists are 
taken from the same records, the same authority. 
Entick has the names, places, days of meeting, and 
times of constitution, (but not numbered,) of 210 
Lodges constituted from 1721 to 1756 inclusive, and 
including 43 instituted in America, the West Indies, 
and in different countries in Europe, leaving 167 lodges 
in England under the jurisdiction of the London Grand 
Lodge, a gain of 61 lodges from 1738. But more re- 
markable than the difference mentioned in the two 
lists, and the circumstance that only 8 lodges are 
mentioned which are the same in the two lists, is 
that the Grand Lodge erased from its Books ten 
lodges in 1742 and 1743, giving the number, name, 
and place of meeting of each, so that by referring to 
Entick, pp. 240, 241, these lodges can be identified. 
Entick gives the number of lodges up to the close of 
1743, (less 20 foreign lodges,) 106 in England. 
Among the lodges erased as before noticed, 1742 and 
1748, were lodges numbered 145, 156, 161, 165. 

As the Grand Lodge numbered no doubt consecu- 
tive, and as there were, including the 20 foreign 
lodges, 120 altogether, there could be no lodges of 
numbers above 126. There is a discrepancy here 
which no mathematician can adjust. On comparing 
Anderson’s list of 106 lodges with Entick’s to the 
8 


86 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


close of 1738, there are not ten lodges which are the 
same in both . The two authorized Books cannot be 
reconciled, therefore, neither can be considered au- 
thority, notwithstanding the approval of the Grand 
Masters, Grand Officers, respectable committees, and 
the final approval of the Grand Lodges, and author- 
izing with their approbation these two Books of Con- 
stitutions. These irreconcilable discrepant publica- 
tions, to the intelligent investigating mind, would 
prove that either the Grand Lodge records were 
imperfectly kept, or the author was, purposely by 
Grand Lodge authority, instructed to falsify the truth 
in order to deceive the public. But what of the 
Book of Lodges and the Engraven List? Was not 
the whole matter of these publications got up for 
a purpose? Anderson was the author of the 1723 
and 1738 Constitutions, and he was assisted by 
Desaguliers and Payne. These were the active 
agents in the formation of the London Grand Lodge ; 
the men who led the crowd, and who worked in 
accord to gain their end. There could not have 
been 165 lodges in 1743. Entick copied, it is as- 
sumed, from the record. The proceedings in Grand 
Lodge give the numbers of the lodges erased. So 
far we can understand. If the Book contains a cor- 
rect transcript from the record, then the record is not 
true. Was it altered for the purpose ? There were 
63 lodges erased from the Books, and 5 declined 
merging into other lodges, making 68 lodges that 
from 1742 to 1756 were erased from the Books of 
the London Grand Lodge. It can hardly be sup- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


87 


posed that the Grand Lodge could have been very 
particular as to the kind of material that the lodges 
were composed of, as it was not as to their places of 
meeting, and perhaps the only consideration was the 
contributions and the fees for constituting as well as 
to show a degree of prosperity in the increase of 
Lodges. 

To erase sixty-eight lodges in fourteen years out 
of one hundred and sixty-seven lodges shows a de- 
moralized state of things, a condition unparalleled in 
the history of Masonic organizations. The continued 
complaints made in Grand Lodge of irregular assem- 
blies and irregular makings of Masons in lodges, in 
contravention of the laws of the Grand Lodge, and 
the persistence notwithstanding of those Lodges to 
hold their meetings and make Masons, proves at least 
that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge, and therefore not subject to its 
laws. As they were organized bodies, they must 
have held authority under some Grand Lodge juris- 
diction ; they could not have been isolated assem- 
blies, each independent of the others ; they were a 
united body of Masons, and more harmonious than 
the craft under the jurisdiction of the London Grand 
Lodge. These lodges, as we have already stated, 
were under the jurisdiction of the York Grand Lodge, 
and continued so until the union in 1813. It was be- 
cause they were regular lodges, Masonically consti- 
tuted by the Grand Lodge at York, and because of 
their numbers and the very general esteem in which 
their Mother Grand Lodge was held as the original 


88 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


and only legal source of Masonic authority, that the 
London Grand Lodge did not, dared not take efficient 
measures to cause them to dissolve their associations, 
to discontinue making Masons and discontinue their . 
meetings. If the records of Anderson are correct, if 
his statements are true, the London Grand Lodge had 
the power and the influence in high places to cause 
those “ irregular ” assemblies to dissolve if they were 
composed of a “ few Brethren ” and held their meet- 
ings without any legal Masonic authority. But these 
efficient measures were not taken, and a ruse resorted 
to to prevent the members of the York Lodges from 
meeting and fraternizing with the members of their 
own Lodges, which we have already referred to. That 
ruse, althoifgh condemned by Preston and others, 
and which could not be justified under, any circum- 
stances, Entick does not even mention. But the 
Grand Lodge (London) was very uneasy, “ complaints 
were preferred at every succeeding Committee, and 
the communications fully employed in adjusting dif- 
ferences and reconciling animosities.” This of course 
refers solely to the members of lodges holding under 
their own (London) Grand Lodge. 

The efforts of the Grand Lodge to adjust and re- 
concile, however, proved unavailing, as, “ more seces- 
sions taking place, it became necessary to pass votes 
of censure on the most refractory, and enact laws to 
discourage irregular associations of the fraternity.” 
These “refractory” members affiliated -with Lodges 
of York Masons. They were considered refractory 
because they would not stultify themselves as Masons, 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


89 


they would not violate their conscience in acting con- 
trary to obligations voluntarily assumed, they would 
not countenance an innovation in the secret work of 
Masonry, which was a cause of great grief to the 
Grand Lodge, and hence the 44 votes of censure, &c.,” 
which did not harm them nor change their character 
as good and true Masons. Their secession was from 
a body guilty of the grossest moral and Masonic 
wrong, and uniting with those in whom the pure 
principles of Masonry were conserved, the Masons 
holding under the York Grand Lodge. These York 
Masons were not amenable to nor bound by the laws 
of the London Grand Lodge ; they held to the old 
Constitutions, the Charges, Landmarks, and teach- 
ings of legitimate Masonry as they had received them 
unchanged, unaltered, therefore they could not affili- 
ate nor hold Masonic communion with the Masons 
under the London Grand Lodge. The cause for 
striking off from the Books of the Grand Lodge full 
two-fifths of its Lodges between 1742 and 1756 
proves more than is written, more than we can no- 
tice. Lodges were evidently constituted by the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge without inquiry as to the fitness of 
the applicants as Masons to govern and rule a Masonic 
Lodge, without examination as to their Masonic ac- 
quirements, or being particular as to their places of 
meeting, or their moral characters and standing as 
men in their several communities, or regard to num- 
bers. To multiply Lodges was the aim of the Grand 
Lodge, indifferent as to the material and without any 
considerations for the good of Masonry or the Ma- 
8 * 


9 o 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


sonic institution. Hence the demoralized condition 
of the Lodges instituted by it, the defection of its 
members, the constant complaints in Grand Lodge 
having more for their object a return by it to the old 
institutions, to the ancient usages, customs, and Land- 
marks, than noticing irregularities in the Lodges of 
which the Grand Lodge itself was the primary cause. 

But the dissatisfaction did not cease with the erasure 
of so many Lodges ; an element of disquiet still re- 
mained, a desire among honest and true Masons 
among the Lodges constituted by the London Grand 
Lodge to return again to the old system, and abandon 
the innovations the Grand Lodge had sanctioned. 

We now come to Blaney’s Constitutions, published 
1767, following the records of the London Grand 
Lodge after Entick, 1756. We apply the same re- 
marks to this publication as to Anderson’s and 
Entick’s. It is in the same style as the others, does 
not mention the York Grand Lodge, and its minutes 
are as brief as its predecessors, and equally unreliable. 

Grand Lodge, January 14, 1757. The Marquis of 
Carnarvon, Grand Master. “ The Grand Lodge re- 
ceived information that fourteen persons (names 
given) who are not Masons (among others) meet the 
first and third Tuesdays in every month, at the Marl- 
borough Head, in Pelham street, Spital-Fields, and 
hold what they call a lodge. Ordered, That a list of 
their names be printed, and sent to every lodge, that 
they may be on their guard in their respective lodges, 
lest any of those impostors should gain admittance 
among them. Ordered, That the Grand Secretary 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 9I 

send notice to the seven following lodges, to attend 
at the next Quarterly Communication, and show 
cause why they have not attended the General Meet- 
ings of the Society for some time past, viz.: No. 
61, Red Cross Barbican; No. 62, Putney, Bowling 
Green; No. 75, King’s Arms, St. Margaret’s Hill; 
No. 129, Rising Sun, Fashion street; No. 144, Three 
Tuns, Spital-Fields ; No. 230, Queen’s Head, Great 
Queen street; No. 246, Crown, at Cripplegate.” 

Grand Lodge, May 5, 1757. “It was ordered that 
the three following lodges, not having attended to the 
Summons of the last Quarterly Communication, be 
erazed out of the list of lodges : No. 75, King’s Arms, 
St. Margaret’s Hill; No. 129, Rising Sun, in Fashion 
street, Spital-Fields; No. 230, Queen’s Head, Great 
Queen street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. The four other 
lodges summoned by order of the last Quarterly 
Communication attended and were excused.” 

Grand Lodge, October 31, 1757. “ Ordered, That 

the three lodges lately held at the King’s Arms, St. 
Margaret’s Hill, the Rising Sun, in Fashion street, 
Spital-Fields, and the Queen’s Head in Great Queen 
street, and erazed from the list of lodges by order of 
the Quarterly Communication held the 5th of May, 
1757, having paid two guineas each , be, at their desire, 
restored and entered again on the list.” 

Grand Lodge, February 14, 1758. “ Ordered, That 

No. 106, at King William’s Head, at Portsmouth, and 
No. 160, the Blackraoor’s Head, at Nottingham, be 
erazed from the list of lodges, no lodges having met 
at either of those places for a considerable time.” 


92 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Grand Lodge, February 5, 1759. “The lodge No. 
32, at the George, in St. Mary Axe, having repre- 
sented that they had not a sufficient number of mem- 
bers to hold a lodge : Ordered, That for the future 
they be omitted in the list of lodges.” 

Grand Lodge, November 17, 1760. Among the 
Grand Officers and Provincial Grand Master of Cal- 
cutta, East Indies, present, the record continues — 
“ Franklyn, Esq., Provincial Grand Master of Philadel- 
phia; — Franklyn, Esq., Provincial Grand Secretary of 
Philadelphia.” “ Notice being sent to the following 
lodges to show cause for their non-attendance at the 
Quarterly Communication, Dog Tavern, Garlick Hill, 
Crown in Smithfield, St. Paul’s, Spright’s Town, 
Barbadoes, Swan, Westminster Bridge, Hoop and 
Grapes, St. Martin’s Lane, Gateshead in the County 
of Durham, Saracen’s Head at Lincoln, no Brother 
appearing for them, they were ordered to be erazed 
out of the list of lodges.” 

Grand Lodge, June 5, 1761. “A Brother present 
acquainted the Grand Lodge that at the Glaziers 
Arms, in Water Lane, Fleet street, several persons 
meet there who for small and unworthy considerations 
make Masons in a clandestine manner. Ordered, 
That as soon as the names of the persons so meeting 
can be obtained, they shall be printed and sent to all 
the regular lodges in London, and whoever appears 
to be the acting Master and Wardens, be expelled 
all lodges, and the others not admitted into any reg- 
ular lodge.” 

Grand Lodge, March 29, 1762. “It was reported 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


93 


that, agreeable to the order of the last Quarterly 
Communication, the names of. those persons who 
meet at the Glaziers Arms in Water Lane, Fleet 
street, had been sent to all the lodges.” ‘‘The fol- 
lowing lodges not having attended for a considerable 
time at any Quarterly Communication, it was ordered 
that letters be sent to them, desiring them to show 
cause at the next Quarterly Communication for their 
former non-attendance ; otherwise they should be 
erased out of the list of lodges ; viz. : Grapes, at 
Chatham; Horn, Fleet street; Salutation, Nicholas 
Lane; Three Tuns, Spital-Fields; Three Tuns, Aid- 
gate; Swan, Grafton street, Soho; Bear, Lemon 
street, Goodman’s Fields; Horn, Doctors’ Commons; 
King’s Arms, Queenbythe.” 

Grand Lodge, July 27, 1762. “ Notice having been 

sent to the following lodges, to shew cause for their 
non-attendance at the Quarterly Communications, no 
Brother appearing for them, they were ordered to be 
erased out of the list of lodges ; viz. : The Horn Tavern, 
Fleet street; Bear, Lemon street, Goodman’s Fields.” 

Grand Lodge, October 24, 1763. “The following 
lodges not having attended for a considerable time at 
any Quarterly Communication, it was ordered, that 
letters be sent to them desiring them to shew cause, 
at the next Quarterly Communication, for their for- 
mer non-attendance, otherwise they should be erased 
out of the list of lodges ; viz. : King’s Arms, New 
Bond street; Golden Anchor, Greenwich ; Fountain, 
Shoreditch ; Blue Posts, Southampton Buildings ; An- 
gel, Picadilly ; White Hart, Mansfield street, Good- 
man’s Fields.” 


94 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Grand Lodge, January 23, 1764. “The Quarterly 
Communication ordered the following lodges to be 
erased out of the list of lodges for their non-attend- 
ance at the Quarterly Communications ; viz. : King’s 
Arms, New Bond street ; Fountain, Shoreditch ; 
White Hart, Mansfield street, Goodman’s Fields ; 
Two Blue Posts, Southampton Buildings.” 

Grand Lodge, April 23, 1764. “The petition of 
several Brethren, late members of the King’s Arms 
Lodge, in New Bond street, praying to be reinstated, 
was read : The Quarterly Communication ordered, 
upon their paying two guineas, they should stand in 
the same rank in the list of lodges as before.” 

Grand Lodge, October 29, 1765. “The memorial 
of several Brethren, late at the Fountain in Shore- 
ditch, praying to be restored, was read; and upon 
paying two guineas to the public fund of charity, were 
ordered to be reinstated.” 

As will be seen, the erasure of Lodges not only 
continued, but the Grand Lodge seems to have made 
that a matter of speculation, as upon the payment of 
tzvo guineas they were reinstated. ‘Lodges were 
erased which had not attended the Quarterly Com- 
munications for a considerable time. That indefinite 
period is frequently mentioned, as well as several 
Lodges, several brethren, which, being so clear (?) as to 
time and numbers, aids the close investigator so much, 
that his equanimity of mind could not be disturbed, 
however much he might feel disposed to find fault. 
But the following is not so clear : “ The petitions of 
several brethren, late members of the King’s Arms 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


95 


Lodge, praying to be reinstated, was read. Ordered, 
upon their paying two guineas, they should stand in 
the same rank in the list of Lodges as before.” As 
that Lodge was erased out of the list of Lodges at 
the prior Quarterly Communication, the warrant must 
have been returned to those several brethren, as they 
were restored to the same rank in the list of Lodges 
as before.” The question is, how many were so re- 
stored, so that we can know the number to reconstitute 
a Lodge, because at the following Communication a 
memorial of several brethren, late of Fountain Lodge, 
which had been erased, praying to be restored, were 
simply “ reinstated on the payment of two guineas.” 
We do not know if they each paid two guineas, or if 
a whole Lodge, without regard to numbers, only paid 
two guineas. The record does not say if the warrant 
of Fountain Lodge was given to those several breth- 
ren or not; if not, they were by their reinstatement 
unaffiliated Masons. The imperfect statement of the 
record will be obvious as most unsatisfactory and 
unintelligible. 

Grand Lodge, January 29, 1766. “A Brother in- 
formed the Grand Lodge, that Brother Jonathan Scott 
had, for a small and unworthy consideration, made 
William Morgan, Carpenter and Undertaker, near 
Clare Market, and William Bailey, at the Three Tuns, 
Brook street, Clare Market, Masons. Ordered, that 
a N. B. be put at the bottom of each summons for 
the next Committee of Charity, and Quarterly Com- 
munication, desiring the Lodges not to admit them 
as visitors.” 


96 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Grand Lodge, April 9, 1766. “Brother Jonathan 
Scott, in obedience to the order of the last Commit- 
tee of Charity, appeared, and asked public pardon 
for the indiscretion he had been guilty of in making 
Masons irregularly, and for unworthy considera- 
tions ; and he producing a certificate of such Ma- 
sons being since remade, and promising never to be 
guilty of the like again, was thereupon restored to 
grace.” 

Grand Lodge, October 17, 1766. “The following 
Lodges not having attended for a considerable time 
at any Quarterly Communication, it was ordered, that 
letters be sent to them, to shew cause, at the next 
Quarterly Communication, for their non-attendance ; 
otherwise they will be erased out of the list of lodges : 
Globe, Fleet street; Red Cross Inn, Southwark ; No. 
85, George, Ironmonger Lane; Mercer’s Arms, Mer- 
cer’s street, Long Acre.” 

This closes the Blaney’s Constitutions, so called 
because ordered to be published whilst he was Grand 
Master. There is an appendix to the Book containing 
a summary of the transactions of the Grand Lodge 
to the “Assembly and Feast,” May 5, 1769. Henry, 
Duke of Beaufort, Grand Master. This Book does 
not contain a list of the Lodges, which is much to be 
regretted. It does not mention the Grand Lodge at 
York, nor the “new Grand Lodge in London profess- 
edly on the ancient system,” mentioned by Preston. 
It may therefore be taken as established truth that no 
such Grand Lodge was formed ; and the remark of 
Preston following, that they (meaning the New Grand 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


97 


Lodge) “ pretended to justify (themselves) under the 
feigned sanction of the Ancient York Constitution,” 
sustains us in the opinion that the York Grand Lodge 
had established a District or Provincial authority at 
London for the convenience of the numerous lodges 
under its Constitution, held in the metropolis and 
its surrounding districts. 

Preston, writing of near the close of 1760, states 
that “ Masonry now flourished at home and abroad 
under the English Constitution,” and lauds highly 
“ Lord Aberdour, who continued at the head of the 
fraternity five years,” as having “ equalled any of 
his predecessors in the number of appointments to 
the office of Provincial Grand Master;” and men- 
tions the second appointment “for the town of Nor- 
wich and county of Norfolk,” “ by which the Society 
has been materially benefitted. By the diligence and 
attention of the late Edward Bacon, Esq., to whom 
the patent was first granted, the lodges in Norwich and 
Norfolk considerably increased , and Masonry was regu- 
larly conducted in that province under his inspection 
for many years.” 

But in the next paragraph, writing only nineteen 
months later, he commences : “Lord Aberdour held 
the office of Grand Master till the 3d of May, 1762, 
when he was succeeded by Earl Ferrers, during whose 
presidency nothing remarkable occurred. The Society 
seems at this time to have lost much of its consequence ; 
the general assemblies and communications not hav- 
ing been honored with the presence of the nobility 
as formerly, and many lodges erased out of the list 
9 G 


9 8 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


for non-attendance on the duties of the Grand 
Lodge.” 

Here Preston has the following note. “ Since this 
period, new Constitutions had been too easily granted , 
and lodges multiplied beyoyid proportion. A proper 
check, however, is now put to this practice, the Leg- 
islature having prohibited by a late Act of Parlia- 
ment the constituting any new lodges.” This refers 
to the Act of 179 8, thirty- six years subsequent to 1762. 

We have passed over many of such conflicting 
statements as the above, mentioning the flourishing 
state of Masonry at a certain period and a short time 
afterward the reverse, because we did not care to in- 
crease the size of this publication. But what does 
Preston mean in saying Masonry was regidarly con- 
ducted in that province ? Does he insinuate that Ma- 
sonry was not regularly conducted in other lodges 
under the London Grand Lodge ? Blaney’s Consti- 
tutions is not only defective in omitting the list of 
lodges holding under the London Grand Lodge in 
1769, but among the lodges erased he omits many 
of their numbers and the places of meeting, which is 
not only annoying, but occasions us much inconve- 
nience. Throughout all the Books of Constitutions 
we have referred to, as well as Dr. Oliver and Pres- 
ton’s Illustrations, the condition of the Society seems 
to have depended greatly upon the patronage of 
royal or noble persons, as Preston remarks above : 
“ The Society at this time seems to have lost much 
of its consequence,” and gives the reason that “ the 
general assemblies and communications not having 
been honoured with the presence of the nobility.” 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 99 

The next notice we have of the Ancient Masons is 
under Lord Petre, who succeeded the Duke of Beau- 
fort as Grand Master, May 4, 1772. Preston says: 
“ Many regulations respecting the government of the 
Fraternity were established during Lord Petre’s ad- 
ministration. The meetings of irregular Masons 
again attracting notice, on the 10th of April, 1 777, the 
following law was enacted: ‘That the persons who 
assemble in London and elsewhere , in the character of 
Masons, calling themselves Ancient Masons , and at 
present said to be under the patronage of the duke 
of Athol, are not to be countenanced, or acknowl- 
edged by any regular lodge, or Mason, under the 
Constitution of England : nor shall any regular Ma- 
son be present at any of their conventions, to give a 
sanction to their proceedings, under the penalty of 
forfeiting the privileges of the Society : nor shall any 
person initiated at any of their irregular meetings be 
admitted into any lodge without being remade : That 
this censure shall not extend to any lodge, or Mason, 
made in Scotland or Ireland, under the constitution 
of either of these kingdoms ; or to any lodge or 
Mason made abroad, under the patronage of any 
foreign Grand Lodge in alliance with the Grand 
Lodge of England ; but that such lodge and Mason 
shall be deemed regular and constitutional.’ ” 

Preston has the following “ Remark . — This cen- 
sure only extends to those irregular lodges in Lon- 
don, which seceded from the rest of the fraternity in 
1738, and set up an independent government in open 
defiance of the established authority of the kingdom, 


IOO 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


and the general rules of the institution. See pp. 
241-244. It cannot apply to the Grand Lodge in York 
city ; or to any lodges under that tndy ancient and re- 
spectable banner ; as the independence and regular pro- 
ceedings of that assembly have been fully admitted 
and authenticated by the Grand Lodge in London, in 
the Book of Constitutions printed under their sanc- 
tion in 1738, p. 196.” 

Here we have conclusive evidence that the Grand 
Lodge at York was existing in 1 772, and that it had 
lodges working under its “ truly ancient and respect- 
able banner." Preston published his “Illustrations 
of Masonry" in 1772, and as he had been collecting 
matter from the Grand Lodge Records in London 
and York, and although the statements in the “Re- 
mark " is his writing, it may be considered reliable, 
notwithstanding the exception of the York Grand 
Lodge is not mentioned in the law enacted, or cen- 
sured at that Grand Lodge Communication. But the 
intelligent reader will at least conceive that the Grand 
Lodge went beyond its sphere of authority in men- 
tioning that its censure shall not extend to any lodge or 
Mason made in Scotland or Ireland with whose 
Grand Lodges it was not then in correspondence, or 
any foreign Grand Lodge with which it was in alli- 
ance; and yet in that same year, 1772, the Duke of 
Athol was elected Grand Master of Scotland and 
also Grand Master of the Ancients, so called by the 
London Masons. Now we believe that the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland and the Scottish Masons were as 
intelligent and were as well posted in regard to the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


IOI 


condition of Masonry in England, as the Masons in 
that kingdom themselves ; and in electing the Duke 
of Athol Grand Master, they did it with the full 
knowledge that they recognized the Grand Lodge 
and the Masons according to the old Institutions, 
that is, the Ancient York Masons. 

The inconsistency of the above law will thus be 
apparent, as the Duke of Athol was continued Grand 
Master of the Ancients, the Ancient York Masons, 
from 1772 until 1813, when he resigned, for the 
purpose of promoting the union, in favor of the 
Duke of Kent, who had been made a Mason under 
that Constitution. If the Ancients were irregular, 
then the Grand Master was irregular. He could not 
consistently be Grand Master of a regular and irregu- 
lar body of Masons at the same time ; ergo, all the 
Masons of Scotland were irregular. We believe that 
conclusion to be sound and logical. In closing the 
doors of their Lodges and forbidding Masonic inter- 
course with the Ancients, the London Masons could 
not conscientiously recognize their Grand Master, nor 
any Mason under his jurisdiction. But the addenda 
has a certain signification. Why mention Scotland 
and Ireland in connection with the York Grand 
Lodge ? No doubt the Masons of those two jurisdic- 
tions, through their Grand Masters, bowed reverently 
and tipt their hats in due acknowledgment of the 
consideration of being “ deemed regular and constitu- 
tional l” 

As the Ancient Masons were not under the juris- 
diction of the London Grand Lodge, they were per- 
9 * 


102 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


fectly indifferent to any laws it might pass, and justly 
too. But the insolence and perversion of truth em- 
bodied in the “remark” is beyond comprehension, 
to assert that the “censure cannot apply to the 
Grand Lodge in York City,” “as the independence 
and regular proceedings of that assembly have been 
fully admitted in the Book of Constitutions.” In 
that Book “the old Lodge at York City,” meaning 
the Grand Lodge at York, is charged with “affecting 
Independency,” whilst they concede that “ they have 
the same Constitutions, Charges, Regulations, &c., 
for substance as their Brethren in England.” 

We have already quoted the paragraph and com- 
mented upon it, but the bold assurance of this later 
writer has scarcely been equalled in evasive prevari- 
cation, in hypocritical pretense, and arrogant assur- 
ance in presuming reliance that the readers were so 
obtuse in intellect and so void of common sense as 
not to be able to comprehend the common meaning 
of words. Preston says the independence of the 
York Grand Lodge was “fully admitted and authen- 
ticated,” and refers to Anderson, who charges it with 
affecting independency , or rather ignores the existence of 
such a body. The above law and all previous efforts 
of the London Grand Lodge against those so-called 
irregular were futile and abortive, and did not affect 
them, did not cause them to abandon their organiza- 
tion, nor cause them to cease meeting and to make 
Masons. The reports of the Ancients having seceded 
from the regular Lodges, so called, constituted by the 
London Grand Lodge, was a subterfuge to draw at- 
tention away from the York Grand Lodge. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 103 

It is not only probable, but it may be taken for 
granted, that many Masons made by the Lodges 
holding under the London Grand Lodge did leave 
them and affiliated with York Lodges, hence the 
many complaints commencing at the organization of 
the London Grand Lodge, in 1717, down to the time 
when the arrangements for the union were about 
completed, in 1813. In the before-mentioned law 
there is no reference to nor mention made of a new 
Grand Lodge having been formed. Preston records, 
that “ during his lordship’s presidency some lodges 
were erased out of the list for non-conformity to the 
law, but many new ones were added, so that under 
his banner the Society became truly respectable.” 

Some erased, and many added, is too indefinite, be- 
sides very unsatisfactory. But in all the publications 
of the Grand Lodge, as well as in Preston, Oliver, 
Laurie, and some others we will refer to, there is a 
studied attempt to conceal from the reader all impor- 
tant facts. The statements are all one-sided and 
mainly following the style of the Reverends Ander- 
son and Desaguliers in evasion of the truth. It would 
not have answered their purpose to be explicit in 
their statements, to leave no room for doubt. 

What are we to understand by some erased, and 
many added ? Why not state what Lodges were 
erased ? At least, how many of them. There may 
have been more erased than Lodges added. And as 
words have meaning, what are we to understand by 
“ the Society became truly respectable ” under his 
Lordship’s banner? Does it mean that under former 


104 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


banners the Society was not respectable? Under 
Lord Petre’s administration, in May, 1 777, commenced 
the dispute with the Lodge of Antiquity, of which 
Preston was a member. The Grand Lodge, against 
every principle of Masonry, interfered with the pre- 
rogatives of the Lodge which had, by resolution, re- 
solved on St. John’s Day to attend divine service at 
St. Dustan’s Church in the clothing of the order, and 
in addition, the Lodge had “ expelled three of its 
members for misbehaviour; the Grand Lodge also in- 
terfered, and without proper investigation, ordered 
them to be reinstated.” “With this order the Lodge 
refused to comply.” The Grand Lodge persisting in 
compliance with its “ order,” the Lodge severed its 
connection with the Grand Lodge, notified it of its 
separation, “ and avowed an alliance with the Grand 
Lodge of all England , held in the city of York!' “ The 
Grand Lodge, on the other hand, enforced its edicts, 
and extended protection to the few (three) brethren 
whose cause it had espoused, by permitting them to 
assemble as a regular lodge, without any warrant, 
under the denomination of the Lodge of Antiquity 
itself, and suffering them to appear, by their represen- 
tatives, at the Grand Lodge as the real Lodge of An- 
tiquity, from which they had been excluded, and 
which still continued to act by its own immemorial 
constitution ; anathemas were issued, and several 
worthy men expelled the Society for refusing to sur- 
render the property of the Lodge to persons who 
had been regularly expelled from it ; while printed 
letters were circulated with the Grand Treasurer’s 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 105 

accounts, highly derogatory to the dignity of the 
Society. This produced a schism, which subsisted 
for the space of ten years.” 

With the cause of the difficulty between the Grand 
Lodge and the Lodge of Antiquity we have no con- 
cern, but we learn from Preston that the lodge avowed 
an alliance with the Grand Lodge at York ; by this 
we understand that the Lodge affiliated with the York 
Grand Lodge, and as it and its members were restored 
in 1790, the York Grand Lodge was existing at that 
time. The action of the London Grand Lodge, as 
stated by Preston, shows an animus in the exercise 
of power by the Grand Lodge subversive of every 
principle of Masonry, of Masonic justice and pro- 
priety. It was not the first time it took under its 
wing expelled Masons and gave them authority to 
work as a Lodge, but in this case of forming a Lodge 
with the three members expelled from the Lodge of 
Antiquity, and under that false banner admitting rep- 
resentatives from it to the Grand Lodge, from a Ma- 
sonic standpoint was so flagrant an act of Masonic 
wrong to the old Lodge of Antiquity, that we can 
only conceive that the members of that Lodge, in- 
cluding Preston, must have been devoid of all self- 
manhood, of the dignity and nobility of the divinely 
formed human being, of every trait and characteristic 
of the being created in the likeness of God, and lost 
to all sense of honpr and .self-esteem in returning 
again under the banner of that Grand Lodge guilty 
of the gross outrages Preston has himself portrayed. 

At the Grand Assembly, May 2, 1790, “was con- 


106 ANCIENT YORK AND 

firmed the reinstatement of the members of the Lodge 
of Antiquity in all their Masonic privileges,” and 
Preston, the author of “ Illustrations of Masonry,” 
included. In regard to the reinstatement of the Lodge, 
the causes which produced the result, the preliminary 
action, consultation, agreement, &c., &c., Preston 
gives us no information, no light on the subject what- 
ever, no intimation in which body the movement was 
inaugurated ; only the notice of confirmation of re- 
instatement we have just quoted. 

“At the Communication in April, 1782, this im- 
portant business coming under consideration, after a 
variety of opinions had been delivered, it was unani- 
mously resolved, ‘ that the Grand Master should be 
requested to adopt such means as his wisdom might 
suggest, to promote a good understanding among the 
brethren of the three united kingdoms,” (England, 
Scotland, Ireland.) “ Notwithstanding this resolution, 
the wished-for Union has not yet been fully accom- 
plished; but we trust, from some late proceedings in 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland, through the mediation 
of the Earl of Moira, that event is not far distant.” 

“At a meeting of the Grand Lodge in PMinburgh, 
on the 30th of November, 1803, the Earl of Moira, 
the acting Grand Master of England, attended* and 
in an impressive speech related the conduct of the 
Grand Lodge of England to the irregular Masons of 
that kingdom, with whom he understood the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland had established an intercourse. 
He stated that the hearts and arms of the Grand 
Lodge which he had the honor to represent, had ever 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 10 / 

been open for the reception of the seceding brethren ; 
but that they had obstinately refused to acknowledge 
their error, and return to the bosom of their mother 
lodge. He further observed, that though the Grand 
Lodge of England differed in a few trifling observances 
from that of Scotland , the former had ever entertained 
for Scottish Masons that affection and regard which 
it was the object of Freemasonry to cherish and the 
duty of Freemasons to feel.” 

In this speech of the acting Grand Master of England 
we have an admission, publicly made before the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland, of a difference of “ a few trifling 
observances ” which were unknown to the Scottish 
Masons. The admission of the fact is sufficient, com- 
ing from such high authority. Of course he would 
mention they were few and trifling , but it was a 
necessity to refer to the different observances before 
that intelligent body who must have been aware of the 
fact ; and after mentioning that the differences were few 
and trifling, (as he must say something,) he cleverly 
turns the subject, expressing “affection and regard” 
which the London Grand Lodge “had ever entertained 
for Scottish Masons.” But the fact must not be lost 
sight of that the visit of the acting Grand Master of 
the London Grand Lodge to the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland was made twenty-one years after the Grand 
Lodge had “ resolved that the Grand Master should 
be requested to adopt such means as his wisdom 
might suggest to promote a good understanding 
among the brethren of the three united kingdoms ; ” 
and thirty-one years after the Duke of Athol, Grand 


ioB 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Master elect of Scotland, was chosen Grand Master 
of the Ancients , properly Ancient York Masons. 

In the interim of the twenty-one years since the 
adoption of the above resolution, why was no attempt 
made by the Grand Masters of England to “pro- 
mote a good understanding with the brethren ” of 
Scotland and Ireland ? Was it necessary for the 
Earl of Moira, the acting Grand Master, to visit the 
Grand Lodge of Scotland, because the time was pro- 
pitious, because the Grand Masters had heretofore 
neglected to carry out that resolution, or because of 
certain relations with the officials at Edinburgh, that 
he ventured his visit in expectation to be able to 
accomplish the object of that resolution so far as 
Scotland was concerned ? 

But there may be something in the notice published 
in the 1738 Book of Constitutions, mentioning Scot- 
land and Ireland as affecting independency, to which 
umbrage was taken, and, as Preston has remarked, 
“ Notwithstanding the pitch of eminence and splendor 
at which the Grand Lodge in London has arrived, 
neither the lodges of Scotland nor Ireland court its 
correspondence.” 

And as many years had passed since that offensive 
publication, and the brethren in Scotland and Ireland 
held no communication with the London Masons, 
the latter, as a stroke of policy, in the enactment of 
the law, April 10th, 1777, against the “Ancient 
Masons ” under “ the patronage of the Duke of 
Athol,” particularly exempted the Masons in Scot- 
land and Ireland as not including them in the cen- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. IO9 

sure, but that they “ shall be deemed regular and 
constitutional,” which was no doubt intended both as 
complimentary and to allay or soften any ill-feelings 
entertained by the Masons of Scotland and Ireland 
against the London fraternity, but in our view was 
an offensive insult to them, as they did not need the 
recognition of the London Masons to determine their 
regularity or constitutionality, nor did they court its 
correspondence. 

The speech of the Earl of Moira at Edinburgh, as 
above quoted, is, if reported correctly, somewhat 
equivocal. In what view are we to understand, he 
“ related the conduct of the Grand Lodge of England 
to the irregular Masons ” ? He could not have re- 
ferred to any attempt at mediation, of a proposition 
to appoint committees to discuss questions at issue, 
to appoint referees ; what then was “ the conduct of 
the Grand Lodge ” ? Overlooking their own defi- 
ciencies, they required the Ancient Masons, whose 
Grand Master was the Duke of Athol, whom they re- 
cognized as a regular Mason, to acknowledge that 
they were irregular Masons, and to submit themselves 
to the London Grand Lodge, to dissolve their organ- 
izations and thus prove to the world not only that 
they had been in error, but by so doing acknowledge 
the regularity of the London Grand Lodge. It was 
to stultify themselves as regular Masons, as Ancient, 
or Ancient York Masons, and affiliate themselves 
with the Modern Masons. The conduct referred to 
was prescriptive, not a generous conduct as to an 
equal whom the Grand Lodge was ready to receive 
10 


no 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


with open hearts and arms. The intent of that speech 
was to bias the Grand Lodge of Scotland against the 
Ancient Masons with whose Grand Lodge it was in 
correspondence, and therefore the salvo of apprecia- 
tion and regard the London Grand Lodge had always 
felt towards the Scottish Masons. 

“In November, 1801, a charge was presented to 
the Grand Lodge against some of its members , for 
patronising and officially acting as principal officers in 
an irregular society, calling themselves Ancient 
Masons, in open violation of the laws of the Grand 
Lodge. The charge being fully supported, it was de- 
termined that the laws should be enforced against 
these offending brethren , unless they immediately 
seceded from such irregular meetings. They solicited 
the indulgence of the Grand Lodge for three months, 
in hopes that during the interval they might be en- 
abled to effect an union of the two Societies. This 
measure was agreed to ; and that no impediment 
might pervert so desirable an object, the charge 
against the offending brethren was withdrawn; and 
a committee, consisting of Lord Moira and several 
other eminent characters, was appointed to pave the 
way for the intended union ; and every means 
ordered to be used to bring back the erring Brethren 
to a sense of their duty and allegiance. 

“ Lord Moira declared, on accepting his appoint- 
ment as a member of the Committee, that he should 
consider the day on which a coalition was formed , one 
of the most fortunate in his life ; and that he was em- 
powered by the Prince of Wales to say, his Royal 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


Ill 


Highness’ arms would ever be open to all the Masons 
in the kingdom indiscriminately. 

“On the 9th of February, 1803, it being repre- 
sented to the Grand Lodge that the irregular Masons 
still continued refractory, and that, so far from solicit- 
ing readmission among the craft, they had not taken 
any steps to effect an union ; their conduct was 
deemed highly censurable, and the laws of the Grand 
Lodge were ordered to be enforced against them. It 
was also unanimously resolved, That whenever it 
shall appear that any Masons under the English Con- 
stitution shall in future attend, or countenance, any 
lodge or meeting of persons, calling themselves 
Ancient Masons } under the sanction of any person 
claiming the title of Grand Master of England, who 
shall not have been duly elected in the Grand Lodge, 
the laws of the Society shall not only be strictly en- 
forced against them, but their names shall be erazed 
from the list, and transmitted to all the regular lodges 
under the Constitution of England ? ” 

The following paragraph Oliver has omitted in his 
Reprint. We copy from Preston, 12th London edi- 
tion. 

“As these censures extend to such a numerous 
circle, it may for a short time interrupt the general 
harmony of our meetings ; but it is hoped, that when 
the Brethren of whom the irregular Societies are com- 
posed, are aware that, by continuing to assemble with- 
out regular sanction, they are acting contrary to the 
ancient charges of the Order, and encouraging a 
division in the family of Masons, they will soon re- 


1 12 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


unite under the legal banner, and acknowledge one 
supreme head, to whom all the Fraternity in the 
kingdom are bound to pay allegiance. Should any 
trifling variations in the formalities of the institution 
impede the progress of this union, we trust they will 
be immediately removed, and every Brother vie who 
shall be most assiduous in preserving the original 
landmarks of the Order.” 

Why Oliver should have given an imperfect reprint 
of Preston in omitting whole paragraphs, is not only 
suspicious, but a gross deception, as well as a moral 
and legal wrong. Such conduct is unjustifiable under 
any circumstances, especially by a minister of the 
Gospel. “ The means justify the end,” is an axiom of 
low politicians, and has been often used as an argu- 
ment to justifythe most heinous atrocities and acts of 
oppression and deceit in the name of the lowly Jesus, 
by the clerical profession called to preach his pure 
gospel of peace and good-will. 

It was no doubt in the view of the axiom mentioned 
that Oliver acted. The close of the above paragraph 
refers to trifling variations in the formalities , and Pres- 
ton does not say on which side these trifling varia- 
tions had been interpolated. Preston is cautious, but 
the mere mention of variations in the formalities was 
sufficient for Oliver to exclude the whole paragraph, 
as he judged that the Masonic reader knew which side 
had been guilty of introducing those variations. Now 
we will look at Preston. The paragraph commences: 

“ As these censures extend to such a numerous circle , it 
may for a short time interrupt the general harmony of 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 1 3 

our meetings /” which certainly is an admission that 
there were many of the Masons of the so-called 
regular lodges inclined favorably towards the Ancient 
Masons, because the latter quotations commence with 
a charge against “ some of the members ” of the 
London Grand Lodge, and it could only be the 
members in its jurisdiction which could “ interrupt 
the general harmony of our (the London Grand 
Lodge) meetings.” 

Neither Preston nor the London Grand Lodge 
would admit that the Ancient Masons comprised a 
numerous circle. There is nothing in the other por- 
tions of the paragraph omitted by Oliver which will 
not apply solely and directly to the London Grand 
Lodge and the Masons under its Constitution. Who 
were the first to make a division among the Masons 
of England ? The London Masons. They formed 
a Grand Lodge in 1717, and in doing so, acted “con- 
trary to the ancient charges of the order,” and that 
certainly was “encouraging a division in the family 
of Masons.” 

It would seem as if the whole paragraph was 
covertly intended by Preston to apply to the London 
Grand Lodge and its constituents. The action of the 
London Grand Lodge was altogether in reference 
and applicable only to its own members. A charge 
was brought against some of its members — it may 
have been two, twenty, a hundred or more, sufficient 
however to cause much annoyance to the Grand 
Lodge — and resulted in the passage of a stringent 
resolution, quoted above, as a caution to its own mem- 
10* H 


114 ANCIENT YORK AND 

bership. The matter of a three months’ delay and 
the preparations for a union may have been so, 
although it appears to us to have been interpolated. 
The subject is then changed from its own members 
to the oft - repeated irregular Masons , against whom 
“ the laws of the Grand Lodge were ordered to be 
enforced,” from which we infer that the uncertain 
“some of its members” went over to the Ancient 
York members. 

The declaration of Lord Moira, “that he should 
consider the day on which a coalition was formed 
one of the most fortunate in his life,” and that of the 
Prince of Wales, his “arms would ever be open to 
all the Masons in the kingdom indiscriminately,” 
shows the anxiety of the highest officers of the 
London Grand Lodge to form a union with the 
Ancient Masons, even without them conceding any 
claim of superiority and on terms of perfect equality, 
as regular Masons made in regularly constituted 
Masonic bodies, notwithstanding the fuss and bluster 
of secession, irregular Masons, &c., of Grand Lodge 
enactments. 

“ On the 1 2th of February, 1806, the Earl of Moira 
in the chair, informed the Grand Lodge, that during 
his residence in Edinburgh he had visited the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland, and taken the opportunity of ex- 
plaining to it the extent and importance of this Grand 
Lodge , and also the origin and situation of those 
Masons in England who meet under the authority of 
the Duke of Athol ; that the brethren of the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland had expressed themselves till then 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 1 5 

greatly misinformed of those circumstances , having been 
always led to think that this Society was of a very 
recent date , and of no magnitude; but being more 
thoroughly convinced of their error, they were de- 
sirous that the strictest union and most intimate com- 
munication should subsist between this Grand Lodge 
and the Grand Lodge of Scotland ; and as the first 
step towards so important an object, and in testi- 
mony of the wishes of the Scots Masons, his Royal 
Highness, the Prince of Wales, had been unani- 
mously elected Grand Master of Scotland.” 

[Without closing our quotation, we remark on the 
above, that the Earl of Moira was the Commander- 
in-Chief of his Majesty’s forces in Scotland, and 
acting Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England 
under the Prince of Wales, who was Grand Master. 
The high posftion of the Earl, and consequent influ- 
ence, caused his ex parte statements, made in 1803, to 
deeply impress the Scots Masons with a desire to be 
instrumental in effecting a union between the two 
divisions of the Masons in England. The Earl’s 
statements were evidently taken with some caution, 
notwithstanding the Earl’s remarks that they “ex- 
pressed themselves till then greatly misinformed,” 
which we believe they did not express, but were inter- 
polated by him, as it was not until 1806 that the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland expressed the desire that the 
strictest union may subsist? between the Grand Lodge 
of England and the Grand Lodge of Scotland ; and 
as the first step to that important object they elected 
the Grand Master of England, the Prince of Wales, 


Il6 ANCIENT YORK AND 

the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. 
What the Earl’s reply was to the observation made by 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland, that they always thought 
that the London Grand Lodge “ was of a very recent 
date,” he does not tell. Did he go back to Athelstane, 
926 to 1567, or to the revolution in 1717, and men- 
tion the true circumstances of the formation of the 
London Grand Lodge ? We doubt that the thought 
“ of a very recent date ” was expressed, but if it was 
it must have brought the color to his cheeks, as he 
could not answer truly, and must have evaded any 
reference to the origin of the Society, the London 
Grand Lodge. We now continue the quotation from 
Preston.] 

“ The Grand Master in the chair further informed the 
Grand Lodge, that the Grand Lodge of Scotland had 
expressed its concern that any difference should subsist 
amongst the Masons of England , and that the lodges 
meeting under the sanction of the Duke of Athol shoidd 
have withdrawn themselves from the protection of the 
Ancient Grand Lodge of ' England, but hoped that 
measures might be adopted to produce a reconcilia- 
tion, and that the lodges now holding irregular 
meetings would return to their duty and again be 
received into the bosom of the Fraternity. That in 
reply his Lordship had stated his firm belief that this 
Grand Lodge would readily concur in any measures 
that might be proposed for establishing union and 
harmony amongst the general body of Masons ; but 
that after the rejection of the propositions made by 
this Grand Lodge three years ago, it could not now. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. Ilf 

consistent with its honor or the dignity of its illus- 
trious Grand Master, make any further advances; but 
that as it still retained its disposition to promote the 
general interest of the Craft, it would always be open 
to accept of the mediation of the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland, if it should think proper to interfere on the 
subject. Whereupon it was resolved, that a letter be 
written to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, expressive 
of the desire of this Grand Lodge, that the strictest 
union may subsist between the Grand Lodge of Eng- 
land and the Grand Lodge of Scotland ; and for that 
purpose, that the actual Masters and Wardens of the 
lodges under the authority of the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland who may be in London, on producing pro- 
per testimonials, shall have a seat in this Grand 
Lodge, and be permitted to vote on all occasions.” 

In this portion of the paragraph it will be seen that 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland expresses a concern 
that any difference should subsist among the Masons of 
England ; that surely was a matter of regret as well 
of concern, and the concern is continued “ that the 
lodges meeting under the sanction of the Duke of 
Athol should have withdrawn themselves from the 
protection of the ancient Grand Lodge of England!' 

We believe that here is a clear intimation that the 
Earl of Moira practised a deception in his statements 
to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The Grand Lodge 
of England that he represented was not an ancient 
Grand Lodge in any sense ; it did not consider itself 
as ancient; the term never was applied to it in any 
of its publications, its correspondence, its transac- 


1 1 8 ANCIENT YORK AND 

tions, or its expressions on any occasion whatever, 
unless the Earl in his statements to the Scots Masons 
represented that his Grand Lodge had an existence 
prior to 1717. 

The term ancient, as applied by the Grand Lodge 
of Scotland, would prove that a deception was prac- 
tised in applying it to the body from which the lodges 
under the Duke of Athol had withdrawn. The word 
ancient was originally applied to the York Masons, 
as, Ancient York Masons ; the London Masons, after 
forming an independent Grand Lodge, changed the 
secret work of the Order, on account of which many 
of its members went and attached themselves to the 
York Masons; and as the London Grand Lodge pro- 
nounced them “seceders,” “irregular Masons,” &c., 
they in return called the others Modern Masons , as 
they had infringed upon the ancient charges and 
usages, and stated that as they had not made any 
changes in the body of Masonry, but maintained the 
ancient customs and ceremonials, they were the only 
ancient Masons. 

Because the Masons under the 1717 organization 
were pronounced Modern, they applied the term 
“ ancient,” “ irregular,” &c., to the others, but never 
mentioned them in connection with York Masons; 
the York Masons were completely tabooed by them, 
as if there were no such body of Masons. 

The hope expressed by the Grand Lodge of Scot- 
land “ that measures would be adopted to produce a 
reconciliation,” opened the way for the Earl of Moira 
“to accept the mediation of the Grand Lodge of 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. II9 

Scotland, if it should think proper to interfere on the 
subject.” Upon the Earl’s statement the Grand 
Lodge resolved, that a letter be written to the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland expressive of its desire that the 
strictest union may subsist between the two Grand 
Lodges, and conceding to the actual Masters and 
Wardens of the lodges in Scotland when in London 
a seat in the Grand Lodge and the privilege of voting 
on all occasions. 

In all these representations of the Earl of Moira, 
there is an evident design of misrepresentation and 
deception towards his own Grand Lodge, as well as 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland. His statement to his 
own Grand Lodge, 1806, made more than two years 
after he visited the Grand Lodge of Scotland, is con- 
siderably embellished with observations that do not 
appear to have been made before the Grand Lodge 
of Scotland. The explaining “the extent and im- 
portance of this (the London) Grand Lodge, and also 
the origin and situation of those Masons in England 
who meet under the authority of the Duke of Athol,” 
he could not do without departing from truth. It 
would be most interesting to know the nature of the 
explanations, if any such were made. The extent and 
importance of his Grand Lodge he might magnify as 
much as he pleased before a Hindoo audience unac-. 
quainted with the language as well as the existent 
facts ; but before a body of Scots Masons, noted for 
their intelligence and general characteristic of exam- 
ining, investigating, and informing themselves on 
every subject in which they are interested, is too big 


120 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


a plum to swallow, and mentioning “ that the mem- 
bers of the Grand Lodge of Scotland expressed them- 
selves till then greatly misinformed,” as if none of 
them had any knowledge of Preston’s illustrations, 
which had been published a third of a century before, 
and run through many editions, and was as well 
known in Scotland as in England. 

Lawrie, in his History of Freemasonry, 1804 ed., 
mentions the Earl of Moira being at the meeting of 
the Grand Lodge, November, 1803, and reports 
almost substantially the same words as having been 
spoken by him as in our quotation from Preston. 
Lawrie has Ancient Masons, and Preston irregular 
Masons. The Earl of Moira certainly did not tell the 
truth in saying that the Grand Lodge of Scotland 
expressed the desire “ that the strictest union and 
most intimate communication should subsist between 
this Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Scotland.” 
If the Earl of Moira as quoted made the statement to 
his Grand Lodge, then he deceived it, as at that meet- 
ing his Grand Lodge, after his statement, “Resolved, 
that a letter be written to the Grand Lodge of Scot- 
land expressive of its desire that the strictest union 
may subsist between the two Grand Lodges ; ” which 
initiated a movement for the union and fraternal cor- 
respondence between the two Grand Lodges. 

“On the 1 2th April, 1809, it was resolved, That 
this Grand Lodge do agree in opinion with the com- 
mittee of charity ; that it is not necessary any longer 
to continue in force those measures which were re- 
sorted to in or about the year 1739, respecting irreg- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


121 


ular Masons, and do therefore enjoin the several lodges 
to revert to the ancient landmarks of the Society .” This 
concludes our review of Preston, 12th London ed., 
which brings the work down to the close of 1 8 1 1 . 
Oliver has the following significant information added 
in his Reprint of Preston to the above paragraph : 
“This measure was carried into effect by the appoint- 
ment (with the sanction of the Grand Master) of an 
occasional lodge named ‘The Lodge of Promulga- 
tion,’ which will appear to have been a step prepara- 
tory to the so much desired union of Masons Ancient 
and Modern.” 

It is conclusive from the above action of the com- 
mittee of charity, and the concurrence of the Grand 
Lodge, that it was necessary, preparatory to a union, 
for them to return again to the ancient usages, to no 
longer continue the innovations or changes made in 
the ceremonial, which was the cause of so many of 
its members leaving it and affiliating with the An- 
cient Masons ; “ to revert again to the ancient land- 
marks of the Society.” Hence the Lodge of Promul- 
gation was appointed to instruct the Masons under 
the London Grand Lodge what the ancient land- 
marks were, and to no longer use the ceremonials 
substituted in 1739; and hence at the union there was 
so little difference found between the Masons under 
the two Grand Lodges by the Lodge of Reconcilia- 
tion through its committees of examination. The 
course adopted was a clear admission on the part of 
the London Grand Lodge that it had departed from 
the ancient landmarks, and as a consequence, that it 
11 


122 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


✓ 


was the cause of continued secession from its ranks, 
and by logical deduction they were the irregular Ma- 
sons and not the ancients, and therefore they were 
justly entitled to the offensive appellation of “ Modern 
Masons.” 

Prior to the articles of union, Oliver has the follow- 
ing : “ When by the accession of the Prince of Wales 
to the Regency of the United Kingdom, etiquette 
seemed to require his resignation as Grand Master, 
the Duke of Sussex was, by the unanimous acclama- 
tion of the Grand Lodge, elected to fill that high and 
important situation ; and the Prince Regent soon 
after graciously condescended to accept the title of 
Grand Patron of the Order. 

“ It was early discovered, that the Duke of Sussex’s 
whole heart was bent on accomplishing that great 
desideratum of Masons, the union of the two Frater- 
nities who had been mistermed Ancient and Modern; 
and his high station in life certainly carried with it an 
influence which could not have been found in an 
humbler individual. 

“It has been already said, that his Grace the Duke 
of Athol was at the head of the Ancient Fraternity — 
for, to be explicit without circumlocution, we must at 
present make use of these terms relatively. The fact 
is, that the Ancients after their secessions continued 
to hold their meetings without acknowledging a su- 
perior, till 1772; when they chose for their Grand 
Master the Duke of Athol, who was then Grand Mas- 
ter elect for Scotland. 

“ This venerable nobleman, we may presume , was 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 123 

convinced by the Royal Duke’s arguments, strength- 
ened by his own good sense and benevolent mind, 
how desirable must be an actual and cordial union of 
the two societies under one head ; because, to pave 
the way for the measure, his Grace, in the handsomest 
manner, shortly after resigned his seat of Grand Mas- 
ter, recommending his Royal Highness the Duke of 
Kent (who had been made a Mason under that con- 
stitution) as his successor; who was accordingly 
elected and installed Grand Master of that body of 
Masons, at Willis’s Rooms, St. James’ Square, on the 
1st of December, 1813, on which occasion his Royal 
Highness most liberally professed, that he had ac- 
cepted the office with the sole view of cooperating, 
more effectually, perhaps, with his Illustrious Brother 
of Sussex, in promoting and cementing the so much 
desired union.” 

From the foregoing extracts, and our review of 
them, the reader must be satisfied that the several 
Books of Constitution authorized by the London 
Grand Lodge were written with the object of lauding 
its own organization, magnifying its own importance 
in the estimation of its readers, pandering to a. con- 
siderable extent to the nobility, and omitting such 
important events and occurrences which they deemed 
prejudicial to them as the leading and governing 
body of Masons, and considered all others as irreg- 
ular who worked not under their banner, did not 
worship at their altars. 

The history of Anderson, published in the 1723 
edition, is in the main copied in future editions, which 


124 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


as an ecclesiastic work may be read with interest by 
certain classes of religionists, but to intelligent Free- 
masons it is of no account, possesses no value, and 
as a contribution to literature, with the exception of 
its myths and fables, is a compilation full of errors 
and misstatements, which any intelligent schoolboy of 
to-day would be ashamed to acknowledge himself the 
author of. 

The Ancient Charges in the 1723 and 1738 edi- 
tions are different, and one or the other must be cor- 
rupted, as we will show, and which in our opinion 
was the case with both, and indeed all which are ac- 
cepted at the present day as the Simon pure Ancient 
Charges. 

The Proceedings of the Grand Lodge from the 
1738 publication down to the union in 1813, give us 
little information as to the business brought before 
the Grand Lodge ; the abstracts are most meagre, re- 
lating chiefly to Elections of Grand Masters, Installa- 
tions and Ceremonials, Feasts, Laying of Corner- 
Stones, references to irregular Masons and Seceders. 
As among a quantity of chaff a few grains of 
wheat will be found, so the investigating student 
who will carefully wade through the pages of these 
volumes will find here and there some remark, some 
statement, which he can appropriate in some line of 
thought. 

It will be noticed by the above extracts from 
Oliver, and all preceding action of the London 
Grand Lodge in reference to a union, the great de- 
sire for that desideratum was on its part, and not on 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


125 


the side of the Ancients, and perhaps that would not 
have been attained in this century, if at all, had it not 
been for a concatenation of circumstances favorable 
to the Grand Lodge in the attainment of its long- 
sought desire. The influences of the eminent and 
leading minds of the Grand Lodge were brought to 
bear upon the Grand Master, the Duke of Athol, who 
seconded their truly worthy, beneficent Masonic de- 
sign, which ultimated in the union of two bands of 
Brother Masons who had for many years been 
estranged from each other. 

It would appear, from the liberal remark made by 
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, “ that his 
arms would ever be open to all the Masons in the 
kingdom indiscriminately ,” that his wisdom and con- 
ciliatory influence, more than aught else, were pro- 
motive of producing that very happy result. 

The enactments of the Grand Lodge against the 
irregular Masons produced no result ; they were in- 
effective, and would lead to the belief that the Ancient 
Masons were a strong body, capable of supporting 
and maintaining their organization in defiance of every 
effort of the self-styled regular Masons. 

As the Union was in prospect by the resignation of 
the Duke of Athol, and recommending the Duke of 
Kent as his successor, who was elected Grand Master, 
with the understanding that he could better cooperate 
with the Prince Regent in bringing about a union 
between the two bodies of Masons, the offensive 
terms, Seceders, irregular Masons, were not used, and 
the distinctive appellations, Ancient and Modern, 


11 


126 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


were discarded. In the arrangement of the articles 
of Union, and the celebration of the event, there was 
no distinction made : all were equal according to their 
position and attainments, and all had to submit to the 
ceremonials, usages, etc., that both through their 
committees had agreed upon were the Ancient Land- 
marks, and all had to go through the process of re- 
obligation. 

As in preceding remarks we stated that the organ- 
ization of the Grand Lodge in 1717 was not a revival 
but a revolution, we now quote Lawrie, although he 
takes Anderson’s statement of there only being four 
Lodges in London at that time. “Four Lodges only 
existed in the South, and few hopes could be enter- 
tained of a revival while the seat of the Grand Lodge 
was at such a distance as the city of York. In such 
circumstances the four Lodges met in 1717, and in 
order to give vigor to their declining cause and ad- 
vance the interests of the fraternity in the South, they 
elected themselves into a Grand Lodge , and chose An- 
thony Sayer, Esq., for their first Grand Master .” 

“ The motive which suggested this institution was 
certainly laudable and useful ; but every person must be 
aware that the four Lodges were guilty of a considerable 
impropriety in omitting to request the countenance of 
the Grand Lodge of York.” Lawrie countenanced 
the London Grand Lodge, and in relation to the an- 
cients he adopted Preston’s views, but in the above 
candid remarks he wrote in favor of truth, of Ma- 
sonic usage, as an intelligent, enlightened Mason. 

Lawrie continues : “ Notwithstanding this negli- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 12J 

gence, the greatest harmony subsisted between the 
two Grand Lodges till 1734.” The word negligence is 
certainly a mild term to apply to seditious conduct, 
especially as he acknowledges the existence of the 
Grand Lodge of York. 

In that year, 1734, however, Lawrie says: “The 
Grand Lodge of England having granted constitu- 
tions to Lodges within the District of York, without 
the consent of their Grand Lodge, incurred to such a 
degree the displeasure of the York Masons that the 
friendly intercourse ” was completely broken off. 
.Also : “ In 1739, some trifling innovations upon the 
ancient customs of the order having been imprudently 
sanctioned by the Grand Lodge of England, several 
of the old London Masons were highly offended, and 
after seceding from the Grand Lodge and pretending to 
act under the York constitution, they gave themselves 
the appellation of Ancient Masons,” and called the 
others modern. And further on, Lawrie says: “The 
Moderns undoubtedly departed from their usual cau- 
tion and propriety of conduct by authorizing the 
slightest innovations upon the ceremonies of an an- 
cient institution.” Although Lawrie censures also 
the Ancients, yet he writes altogether in the interest 
of the London Masons. 

In criticizing the above remarks, copied after Pres- 
ton, it is not reasonable to believe that the seceding 
of several old London Masons could have given the 
Grand Lodge such unrest as to consume the time 
of its meetings for a long period. “ Several ” is 
not so indefinite as to embrace hundreds or fifty ; it 


128 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


means a small number; there were sufficient, how- 
ever, to act under the York constitution and assume a 
distinct title, even according to the author. We have 
only the authority of partisan antagonist writers in 
reference to statements relating to the Masons not 
under the London Grand Lodge. 

Anderson does not mention the Ancient Masons 
as he published in 1738. Preston mentions them, as 
Lawrie, in 1739; but Entick first refers to them in 
1755, sixteen years after Preston. Now we hold that 
the word York was intentionally omitted in calling 
them Ancient Masons, in order to make it appear 
that the Ancients were a new organization of seceders 
from the London Grand Lodge. Therefore the asser- 
tion, pretending to act under the York constitution. 
Why should they pretend? and why simply assume 
the name of ancient only, if they acted under the York 
constitution? It would seem conclusive that Ancient 
York Masons was the correct appellation, as it is a 
title handed down to this time, has always been in 
use in applying it to the York Masons, and Ancient 
Masons has no particular significance ; besides, the 
York Masons were completely tabooed by the London 
Masons, for which reason the word ancient only is ap- 
plied to those who seceded from them and acted un- 
der the York constitution. 

It must not be forgotten that we have only Preston 
as authority for the statement that those who acted 
under the York constitution assumed the name An- 
cient Masons. There is no other authority until 1755, 
when Entick, near the close of the Grand Lodge trans- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


129 


actions, applies it. But Preston mentions them as 
professing that “the ancient tenets and practices of 
Masonry were preserved by them,” and that the new 
Grand Lodge which they instituted was “professedly 
on the ancient system.” What was that ancient sys- 
tem ? the tenets and practices of Masonry which were 
preserved by them, if not the Ancient York system 
which they as Masons originally received from the 
Mother Grand Lodge at York? From the foregoing 
reviews there can be no doubt whatever that Ancient 
York Masons was the real appellation, and that the 
“ new Grand Lodge ” was a District, or limited Grand 
Lodge, appointed by the York Grand Lodge, with de- 
fined powers, within London and its vicinity. It 
could hardly be expected that any writer, a Mason 
under and a member of the London Grand Lodge, 
would stultify his Grand Lodge by the publication of 
facts as they existed which the Grand Lodge itself by 
every possible means aimed to keep out of view, with 
the object to have it believed that the Grand Lodge 
at York was no longer in existence. That such is the 
truth, its own publications prove, and every advantage 
was taken of the fact that the Grand Lodge at York 
never published anything; and this is additional evi- 
dence that the so-called Ancient Masons were Ancient 
York Masons, as they never published any of their 
transactions, in accordance, no doubt, with positive 
rules governing the Grand Lodge, save, the Ahiman 
Rezons published by Lawrence Dermott. 

No history of Freemasonry of the past and present 
century has been truly written, because of the myths 

I 


I3O ANCIENT YORK AND 

and fables that were incorporated with legitimate 
facts by the early writers, particularly the Reverends 
Anderson and Desaguliers, whose Books of Constitu- 
tions have been not only received as standard author- 
ities, but their versions have been accepted by the 
generality of subsequent writers and readers in the 
whole of their contents as established truths. 

A writer of history, in order to be truthful to him- 
self and to the public, ought to examine carefully 
every statement, and not accept as true, come from 
what source it may, without an exhaustive investiga- 
tion of the subject. The investigation should be free 
from all bias of preconceived opinions, of educational 
teachings, of traditional authorities, of prejudices of 
any kind whatever. In regard to the subject under 
consideration, it should always be had in view that 
the information we have is mainly one-sided and 
tinged with every shade of prejudice, of hostile animus 
that a revolutionary body could bring to bear in claim 
of sovereignty and absolute dominion. 

The London Grand Lodge formed in 1717, not sat- 
isfied with continued aggressions upon the rights of 
the Grand Lodge at York from 1567 to its ultimate 
act in severing its ties from its parent Grand Lodge 
and establishing an independent Masonic govern- 
ment, but claimed to be the only Masonic authority in 
England. In the exercise of that claim it set at de- 
fiance all Masonic law, Masonic comity, Masonic jus- 
tice, and not only violated the essentia of the obliga- 
tion to which every member and all Masons are cov- 
enanted, but justified itself in innovating upon the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 3 I 

ancient charges and secret teachings of the institu- 
tion. The London Grand Lodge was not a legiti- 
mate body of Masons ; it had no regular Masonic 
existence, nor were the persons made Masons under 
its constitutions perfect and regular Masons; they all 
of them had to undergo the process of healing, of 
being properly instructed, of being reobligated at the 
union in 1813, as well as the Ancient York Masons 
with whom they united in forming the present Grand 
Lodge of England. 

The history preceding the union and the articles 
agreed upon, as well as the arrangements prior to in 
appointing a Lodge of Promulgation, all conclusively 
prove that the union was a necessity to establish the 
regular Masonic status of the London Masons, and 
such we believe was the view taken by the Prince 
Regent, the Grand Patron of Masons, in promoting 
the union and making the statement that his arms 
would always be open to all the Masons in the 
kingdom indiscriminately. 

The early authorized publications of the London 
Masons, Anderson’s, Entick’s, Blaney’s, and Nor- 
thouk’s Books of Constitutions, were not written in 
the cause of Truth, nor were the various Freemason’s 
Companions, which were mainly copies so far as the 
transactions of the Grand Lodge were printed, and 
they all express more in what is omitted than what is 
related. Dr. Oliver, who is by no means reliable in 
his Reprint of Preston, commenced where Preston 
left off immediately preceding the union, and con- 
tinued his History down to 1842; but in no part of 


132 ANCIENT YORK AND 

his work does he comment upon the causes which 
led to union, nor the preparations prior to, neither the 
arrangements and articles agreed upon for the con- 
summation of that desirable event, although much 
might be said on these subjects. 

As we have confined ourselves to the periods 
between 1567 and 1813, when the regular Grand 
Lodge of England was formed, a review of the pro- 
ceedings had in relation to and at the union is be- 
yond the limits and scope of our intended publication. 

During the past one hundred and fifty years, no 
writers, until within a decade, have attempted a 
critical examination of the authorized versions of 
Freemasonry, although scarce a page of them will 
bear the scrutiny of enlightened investigation ; and 
strange as it may appear even at this day, in this age 
of intellectual progress so prolific of Masonic publi- 
cations emanating from Masonic Grand Bodies, Peri- 
odicals, Books, &c.j all written with the view of pro- 
mulgating Masonic knowledge, yet the brains are 
mainly exercised in commenting upon, expounding 
and elaborating the various subjects all in the same 
vein of thought, without analysis, research, or investi- 
gation out of a common beaten track. 

Brother Findel of Leipzig, and other European 
writers, have in recent years, in a highly commenda- 
ble spirit, with fervency and zeal, entered upon a 
course of investigation, to satisfy themselves of the 
truth of historical statements published in the Books 
of Constitutions, by searching the records to ascer- 
tain* if such documents existed or emanated from the 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 33 

source to which they referred ; and although we dis- 
agree with them in many essentials, as our review 
shows, to the conclusions they arrived at in relation 
to the early history of Masonry in England, and the 
Ancient Grand Lodge at York, and the so-called 
Ancient Masons, yet their researches have disclosed 
much information, interesting, valuable, and im- 
portant, to the Masonic student, and for which, and 
for carrying their investigations outside of the popu- 
lar trodden paths, they are entitled to the thanks of 
the whole fraternity of Masons, and will be ap- 
preciated in the future for their indefatigable efforts 
in the cause of consistency and Truth. 

As our writing extends only to the Union of the 
two Masonic bodies in England, in 1813, and the 
organization of the present Grand Lodge of Eng- 
land, we deem it proper to briefly state here that the 
Union waft not only an event much to be desired and 
coveted, but the conduct and management was highly 
honorable and creditable to both fraternities ; and the 
United Grand Lodge since that time has maintained 
its integrity as a conservator of Masonic principles, and 
in carrying out the aims of Masonry in its benevo- 
lent institutions and charities. Our preceding re- 
marks, therefore, in regard to the London Masons 
and London Grand Lodge, cannot in any sense apply 
to the Masons of England since the union, nor to 
the United Grand Lodge of England. 

We now resume our review and turn to Anderson 
1723 ed. “The Charges of a Freemason extracted 
from the ancient records of Lodges beyond Sea, and 


12 


134 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the 
use of the Lodges in London.” It would be an idle 
and indeed a silly question to ask an intelligent 
Mason where the records are to be found from which 
were extracted the Charges of a Freemason. Where 
were those lodges located ? If the Charges formed 
the basis of instruction to new-made Brethren in Ire- 
land, Scotland, England, and beyond Sea, they must 
have been known to the London Masons. But they 
were extracted from a variety of Ancient Records. 
Then the records were not uniform, and Masons in 
different parts were instructed differently, and in order 
to make the extracts from the records of Lodges, An- 
derson must have had access to the records which he 
could only have had by visiting the lodges, and could 
definitely have stated where the records were, but he 
does not tell. He mentions England. London is in 
England; and according to his statement, four lodges 
and “some old Brothers ” met and formed a Grand 
Lodge in London in 1717. Had those four lodges 
no records, no uniform mode of instructing new-made 
Masons ? If they had a uniform mode, why search 
the records of lodges beyond sea, Scotland and Ire- 
land ? Was it to form a new code of Charges ? We 
believe that the entire code of Ancient Charges was 
the production of Desaguliers and Anderson, and 
that there is no truth in their being extracted from 
any records outside of London. But Anderson 
cannot be believed, he stultifies, contradicts himself, 
of which the following is proof. In his remarks, 
1738 edition, following the dedication “The Author 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 35 

to the Reader,” he reports: “The Free-Masons had 
always a Book in Manuscript call’d the Book of Con- 
stitutions, (of which they have several very ancient 
Copies remaining,) containing not only their Charges 
and Regulations ; but also the History of Architecture 
from the Beginning of Time,” &c. “But they had no 
Book of Constitutions in Print, till his Grace the 
present Duke of Montagu , when Grand Master , 
ordered me to peruse the old Manuscripts , and digest 
the Constitutions with a just Chronology .” 

If Anderson, 1738 ed., as well as the 1723 ed., and 
subsequent writers are to be believed, Masonic Lodges 
existed centuries in England before the 1723 Ancient 
Charges were published, and it cannot be believed 
that in all those years the lodges had no uniform 
mode of instruction, at least approximately so. It 
would exceed our limits to enter into a review of the 
several Charges, although a critical examination will 
show many points of inconsistency blended in with 
sound morals and wholesome advice. But Anderson 
in 1738 is not the Anderson of 1723. He must 
have swung around another circle, have gone another 
voyage beyond sea, have visited other lodges and 
extracted from other records, as his code of Charges 
in 1738 differ in material points from his 1723 code. 
As the two different Ancient Charges have been 
before the fraternity at least one hundred and thirty 
odd years, and Anderson 'claims the authorship of 
both, and as the fraternity swear by Anderson, it 
seems somewhat strange that in all these years no 
attempt has been made to investigate and ascertain 


136 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


the reason why Anderson in 1738, with the approval 
of the Grand Lodge, altered the Charges approved in 
1723. We called attention to the fact so far back as 
1855, while reprinting Dermott’s Ahiman Rezon y and 
after a careful examination at the time, we came to 
the conclusion that the changes were made to ap- 
proximate more nearly to the teachings of the York 
Masons, as about that period, say from 1734 to 1739, 
there was much dissatisfaction among the London 
Masons, and many went over and joined the York 
Lodges, which induced Anderson to make the 
changes in his Book of 1738 Constitutions. Since 
we first called the attention of the craft to the said 
changes in the Charges, a few writers, in referring to 
the subject, made no other comments than to remark 
that the differences were unimportant or of a trifling 
nature. To make a difference in a fundamental law 
to alter the Ancient Landmarks, is by no means a 
trifling or unimportant matter ; it is a great wrong, 
an offence criminal in the highest degree. But the 
importance or unimportance of the differences is not 
what is wanted to be known, therefore all remarks in 
that direction are irrelevant and an evasion of a 
question of the highest importance — the cause or 
reason why the changes were made ? But the differ- 
ences in the two codes of Ancient Charges are by no 
means trifling or unimportant, and although we have 
stated that we could not review the several Charges, 
as our space was limited, we will notwithstanding 
give a brief space to the first of the Charges. In the 
1723 ed., the Masons in Ancient times “ were charged 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


137 


in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country .” 
In the 1 738 ed., St. Paul's mode was adopted, and they 
were only charged to comply with the usages of each 
country. The difference between the two is wide, 
and to say that to be obliged to change one's religio7i } or 
to simply comply with the usages , is an unimportant 
difference, is an abuse of language, an insult to com- 
mon sense. 

Anderson was the first to introduce sectarian ideas 
into the fundamental principles, the Ancient Charges, 
as we have shown ; and confining ourselves to the 
first, under the head, “ Concerning God and Religion/’ 
we ask, Why mention religion? An erroneous opin- 
ion is very generally held as to the meaning of that 
word. In writing and conversation it is used as a 
substitute for creed , as the Catholic, Protestant, Pres- 
byterian, Baptist religion, and in a more general sense, 
as the Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan religion. But 
that cannot be the true sense and meaning of the 
word religion. It is a common remark of those who 
hold liberal views, those who are not creed-bound, 
that there is only one true religion, which approxi- 
mates more nearly to our view. We hold religion to 
be an active principle of the soul common to hu- 
manity, and manifested in every human being accord- 
ing to his or her conscious perceptions. That is 
religion only which the active principle exhibits in 
kindly, beneficent acts, in doing good in any sense 
by demonstrative manifestation, and in useful employ- 
ment, whatever the occupation may be. It is in no sense 
passive, and cannot be, because it is a divine element, 
12 * 


I38 ANCIENT YORK AND 

partaking of the essence and spirit of its divine Origi- 
nal. God is never at rest. Incessantly and eternally 
God is omnipresent throughout the infinite universe, 
and throughout illimitable space there is no single 
spot in which the Almighty hands are at rest, in which 
the greatest worker of us all is not ever and unceas- 
ingly actively manifested. Religion is the divine vi- 
talizing element in humanity which promotes the 
world’s civilization, the world’s progress in enlight- 
enment, in the improvement in the arts, in science, in 
humanizing efforts to elevate and advance the race, 
to conduce to the comfort and happiness of mankind. 
Creedal systems, or so-called religion, are the mani- 
festations of cold intellectual efforts ; they are not 
outwrought of the divine vitalizing element, are not 
instrumental in promoting peace and good will, but 
have always been the great disturbing element in the 
world , exciting animosity, hatred, and strife among 
men, opposing all improvement of the race in knowl- 
edge and scientific development, and retarding the 
progress of mankind to higher 'planes of moral and 
spiritual life. 

Although the first charge has the caption, “ Con- 
cerning God and Religion,” yet God is not mentioned 
in the entire charge; there is no reference whatever to 
God in any sense, an omission certainly singular in 
consideration of the title. The charge commences : 
“A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to obey the moral 
law.” In what sense are we to understand that dif- 
ferent from .the obligation of universal humanity to 
live up to their highest conscientious convictions? 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 139 

To obey the divine commands is obligatory upon all 
men, a solemn duty due from the creature to the Cre- 
ator. The charge, therefore, is simply superfluous 
verbiage. But if “ by his Tenure,” that is, holding a 
relation to the fraternity, Anderson intended to make 
it appear because of that relation Masons did more 
strictly “ obey the moral law ” than those who were 
not Masons, then he should have given some evi- 
dence of the truth palpable to public observation. 
He could not mean that Masons had a higher code of 
ethics than was known to the outside world; that, 
would conflict with the Creed of the Church of which 
he was a minister. The above quoted sentence con- 
tinues : “ And if he rightly understands the Art, he 
will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious 
Libertine." What is the difference between a believ- 
ing and non-believing, an irreligious and religious 
libertine ? The charge implies a difference distin- 
guishing an irreligious from a religious libertine. If 
a Mason rightly understands the Art, that is, the mys- 
teries of Masonry, he will never be a stupid Atheist 
nor an irreligious libertine. There are many persons 
who believe there are none who are not believers in 
a creative intelligence; that there are no Atheists in 
the sense generally applied, but that all human be- 
ings are Theists, and acknowledge the existence of 
God, each according to his or her understanding. It 
is mainly the inconsistent views held of the attributes, 
the power and its exercise, and the original design of 
a prescient God, that scepticism is so prevalent ; and 
because sceptics cannot accept the views entertained 


140 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


by teachers of creedal systems, they are considered 
Atheists or infidels, without regard to their moral 
principles, or the truly divine life they may lead in 
useful employment, in beneficent efforts in relieving 
suffering humanity. 

We might largely extend our criticism on the first 
charge as to the “ expedient only to oblige Masons to 
that religion in which all men agree, leaving their 
particular opinions to themselves,” which simply 
means nothing at all, because there is no religion in 
which all men agree, and in reference to God there is 
the greatest confusion of ideas, no possible approxi- 
mation to a unity of opinion or belief, and saint and 
sage, cramped by ancient authority, are equally, if not 
more, beclouded than the “ poor Indian whose un- 
tutored mind sees God in clouds and hears him in the 
wind.” 

The Materialists do not believe in a God as repre- 
sented to them, but they believe there is an intelligent 
power behind moving the machinery of the universe 
and unfolding material phenomena; and that is as 
clear as the most learned divine can describe the Uni- 
versal Father. Moreover, the Materialist acknowl- 
edges that intelligent, invisible power is beyond 
human ken or reason. Can infallible Pope or fallible 
teacher of the Word more clearly tell what God is ? 
The Materialist considers it incumbent upon him to 
live in obedience to the laws of nature in order to 
enjoy this life properly, and regards that he has duties 
towards his fellow-beings, therefore he must be just, 
honest, and live a life of rectitude. Is not that obey- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. I4I 

ing the moral law ? The Materialist neither believes 
nor denies the existence of conscious life after what 
is called death, after the mortal body is entombed. 
That view differs very little from that of religionists 
generally. If the soul is entombed and lies dormant 
until the end of things , or “judgment day,” so called, 
it might as well be annihilated. The popular reli- 
gionists do not believe in the continued conscious ex- 
istence of the soul, but will have a “ millennium ” at 
least, in a far future that will never be. In our view 
the soul is not buried with the physical body. It can 
never die, never lose its conscious life, nor can its 
consciousness be in abeyance for a single moment. 
Conscious life is not in flesh, blood, nor muscle, 
neither in nerve, system, nor brain. 

We hold that progress in spirit -life is eternal. 
That according to our conscious perceptions we are 
ever attracted towards God, the aspirations of the 
soul ever drawn upward to the Infinite. We live 
and move and have our being, and ever will, through 
the eternal ages, in the divine Being. In the 
economy of God’s government we each have a dis- 
tinct individuality ; that individuality cannot be de- 
stroyed, but ever and ever will unfold in wisdom and 
love approximating more nearly to the unattainable 
Infinite. We believe that often and more frequently 
than is believed that in the dying state the visible 
presence of loved ones passed away is recognized, 
and glimpses of spirit-life are visible; and further, that 
if we all lived more in obedience to the laws of na- 
ture, the laws of God, the veil that hides from our 


142 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


view the invisible world would gradually become 
transparent. There is so much doubt in regard to 
the future in the theologies of the world, so much in- 
consistency in theologic teachings, that unless we di- 
vest ourselves of all that kind of authoritative indoc- 
trination, we cannot have a consistent knowledge of 
God, of the attributes of divine Being, nor of our re- 
lations to the source and fount of all life. Hence the 
diversity of so-called religions, and the absurdity 
of Anderson and Masonic teachers of the present 
day talking about “ that religion in which all men 
agree,” which, if referring to a qualification of “a belief 
in God,” then, as shown above, universal humanity, 
the Materialist, Atheist, Infidel, all believe in an in- 
visible power or force demonstrated throughout the 
universe, and that is all that can ever be known of 
God by Pope, priest, or finite being. 

If we are to understand Anderson that a simple 
“ belief in God ” constitutes religion, then there can 
be no need of creeds, there would be no different 
systems of faith, there would be throughout the 
world but one religion. The only considerations of 
belief would then be some universal standard, what 
God is, the nature and attributes of that Being which 
mankind would accept. But the mere belief in God 
amounts to nothing. There is too much involved in 
the inquiry to accept a simple affirmative assent. 
Something ought to be known about that belief, its 
nature, character, as there should be some foundation 
for a belief as a basis that the conscious perceptions 
accept and appropriate as true. Religion, in its true 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. , I43 

acceptance, is the visible manifestation of God outwrought 
in uses to humanity. Religion is not manifested in sun, 
moon, nor stars, neither in tree, bud, flower, nor animal, 
but God is in all material phenomena throughout the 
universe. In and through these phenomena God’s 
religion is made visible to universal humanity, in the 
prescient wisdom of providing the needs of all created 
beings. Thus true religion, God’s religion, is mani- 
fest to mankind, and through the physical senses is 
illustrated what true religion is, and its mode of man- 
ifestation, in considering the welfare and happiness 
of our brother-man and sister-woman identical with 
our own, and our duty to care, provide for, and assist 
them in their needs. The illustration is palpable to 
observation, and the duties of man to God and his 
fellow-beings clearly shown by the good Father in 
which true religion should be outwrought in human 
life. 

But before we made the discovery that the two 
codes of Charges were different, that Anderson had 
in the 1738 Edition published a different code from 
that of 1723, some enlightened Masons in the United 
States, close investigators, who had never seen a copy 
of the 1738 Constitutions , but assumed, believed that all 
copies of the Ancient Charges published by order of the 
London Grand Lodge were uniform and verbatim copies 
of the 1723 Edition, and having a copy of Dermott’s 
Ahiman Rezon, in which the Ancient Charges are 
word for word copies of the 1738 Anderson’s edi- 
tion, assumed that Dermott had made innovations, 
had altered the Ancient Charges, and called him for 


144 ANCIENT YORK AND 

that reason an impostor, innovator, and other bad 
names, and even invaded the sanctity of his domestic 
life in vile vituperation, — air on the erroneous as- 
sumption that he had made changes in the Ancient 
Charges, which he did not do. What would have 
been the result, if the Charges had been applied to 
Anderson, as he was the guilty one ? But the offence, 
if it was an offence, was not Anderson’s alone, — the 
Grand Master and the members of the Grand Lodge 
sanctioned and approved the second code of Ancient 
Charges. 

The question again recurs, “ Why were the changes 
made ? why adopt a different code of Ancient Charges 
from those approved and sanctioned by the Grand 
Lodge in 1723, and published in its Book of Consti- 
tutions?” It is singular that the Dermott copy of the 
Ancient Charges is verbatim the same throughout as 
the Anderson 1738 Code. Dermott was an Ancient 
York Mason, was Grand Secretary of the Grand 
Lodge at York, and his Ahiman Rezon was the Book 
of Constitutions of the York Grand Lodge, as all 
Ahiman Rezons are of the Grand Lodges which au- 
thorize their publication. We have no better opinion 
of Dermott’s Ahiman Rezon than we have of An- 
derson’s or subsequent Books of Constitutions pub- 
lished by authority' of the London Grand Lodge. 
All of them were published under influences in dero- 
gation of the fundamental principle of Masonry, its 
universality and cosmopolitan character; and truth 
compels us to apply the same remarks to all publica- 
tions of a like nature embracing the Ancient Charges 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 145 

as containing the fundamental laws of the Grand 
Lodges by whose authority they were published. 

Although Dermott’s Ahiman Rezon was published 
eighteen years after Anderson’s 1738 ed., yet there 
are good reasons for believing that his Ancient 
Charges were not copied from Anderson, but had 
been the written code of the York Masons many 
years prior to 1738; and therefore the reason why 
Anderson published that code, and why the London 
Grand Lodge authorized its publication, in place of 
the 1723 code, are questions of great importance. 
And it is somewhat ominous that no one among the 
intelligent Masons of England has given this subject 
any attention, although some of the best minds are 
engaged in investigating and searching in every direc- 
tion for glimpses of light on the early history of 
Masonry in England. 

We have above given our opinion why the London 
Grand Lodge and Anderson adopted a new code of 
Ancient Charges in 1738. If we take into consider- 
ation that Ancient York Lodges existed in London 
in 1717; that before the formation of the London 
Grand Lodge there were many Masons who did not 
affiliate with the London Lodges, and kept up their 
organizations ; that these Lodges did not unite in the 
formationof the Grand Lodge but continued under 
the York Grand Lodge Constitutions ; that the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge was intent to have exclusive juris- 
diction, therefore ignored the existence of the 
Mother Grand Lodge at York, and proclaimed its 
Masons seceders, irregular, schismatics, and finding 
13 K 


146 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


that after nearly two decades, having used every pos- 
sible means to compel the York Masons to come 
under their banner without avail ; they resorted to the 
plan of publishing the Ancient York code of Charges 
as a means to accomplish their aim to induce the 
York Masons to believe that they still adhered to the 
Ancient Constitutions, Charges, and usages of the 
fraternity. But that ruse did not succeed, and after a 
lapse again of eighteen years, the London Grand 
Lodge in 1756 reverted back to the 1723 Charges, 
the same year that Dermott published his first edition 
of the Ahiman Rezon. 

We have every reason to believe that the Ancient 
Charges of Anderson were not the true, and for the 
reasons set forth in the “Approbation” to the 1723 
ed., wherein it is stated, “ Whereas the old Constitu- 
tions in England have been much interpolated y mangled , 
and miserably corrupted , not only with false spelling, 
but even with many false facts and gross errors in 
history and chronology,” & c., and the Grand Master 
“ having ordered the Author to peruse, correct and 
digest , into a new and better method , the history, 
charges, and regulations of the Ancient fraternity ; he 
has accordingly examined several copies from Italy 
and Scotland, and sundry parts of England, and from 
thence, (though in many things erroneous,) and from 
several other ancient records of Masons, he has drawn 
forth the above written new Constitutions , Charges , 
and General Regidations . These were submitted to 
the late and present Deputy Grand Master to peruse 
and correct, the Masters and Wardens of particular 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


147 


Lodges, also the late Grand Master, when the same 
was ordered to be printed, and to which the present 
Grand Master, Grand officers, and Masters and 
Wardens,” (with the consent of the Brethren and 
Fellows in and about the cities of London and West- 
minster,) having perused the performance , do join in 
the solemn approbation which they believe will answer 
the end proposed ; all the valuable things of the old 
records being retained, the errors in history and 
chronology corrected, the false facts and the improper 
words omitted, and the whole digested in a new .and 
better method. And they ordain these to be “ the 
only Constitutions of free and accepted Masons 
amongst us.” 

Now we submit to the intelligent reader, after pe- 
rusing the above statements taken from the Approba- 
tion to the 1723 Book of Constitutions, to which the 
Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, Grand War- 
dens, and Masters and Wardens of Twenty Lodges af- 
fixed their signatures, if the whole or any part of this 
new “performance” ought to be accepted as a rule 
and guide, as containing the fundamental original laws, 
charges, usages of the fraternity of Masons, after the 
unwarranted declaration that the “ old constitutions of 
England ” had been much interpolated , mangled , miser- 
ably corrupted with false spelling , false facts, gross er- 
rors, out of which medley he, Anderson, compiled the 
new constitutions, charges, and general regulations. 

How did the Grand Master or Anderson, or any of 
that revolutionary clique, know that the old constitu- 
tions had been interpolated, miserably corrupted? 


148 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


Did they not antecedently work under that old con- 
stitution? or had they since 1567 commenced alter- 
ing, interpolating, and corrupting the old constitu- 
tions ? They certainly did not go back and reproduce 
the ancient documents. If they had continued to work 
under the old constitutions, they would not have dif- 
fered from the York Masons. But in order to differ 
from them, and to give some plausible pretext for get- 
ting up a new performance , a new constitution, &c., 
they made those unwarranted statements set forth in 
the approbation. The unbiassed, thinking Mason, 
on reading no more than that approbation carefully, 
can surely come to no other conclusion than that 
there was some object back of all that is stated in 
order to give character to, or show a necessity for, 
the new production. 

The Ancient Charges are believed to contain the 
fundamental principles, laws, and usages of the craft, 
and to have come down to us unmutilated, uncor- 
rupted, unaltered ; at least so Masonic writers inform 
their readers ; and here in this 1723 Book, the author, 
as well as the Grand Lodge which authorized its pub- 
lication, and to which it gave its legal sanction, tell 
us a different story and give us a new version, a com- 
pilation from vitiated and corrupt sources, as they 
themselves declare, as the Charges to be read at the 
making of Masons. But authors, to be true to them- 
selves and consistent, ought to have good memories, 
which is applicable as well to Grand Masters as to all 
humans. 

We see, in the above extracts copied from the 1723 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


149 


Book of Constitutions, that the Masters and Wardens 
of twenty Lodges gave their approbation to the per- 
formance. The Lodges are numbered from one to 
twenty, without names or places of meeting . 

Anderson reports in 1738 ed., at a meeting of the 
Grand Lodge, Sept. 29, 1721, he was ordered to di- 
gest the old Gothic Constitutions in a new and better 
method. On 27th Dec., 1721, the Grand Lodge “ap- 
pointed fourteen learned Brothers to examine Bro. An- 
derson’s manuscript.” On 25th March, 1722, the com- 
mittee of fourteen reported, “ after some amendments 
had approved of it.” On the \jth January , 1723, “ G. 
Warden Anderson produced the new Book of Constitu- 
tions now in print , which was again approved , with the 
antient manner of constituting a Lodge.” We call 
attention to the date when the new Book was pro- 
duced in print and approved by the Grand Lodge. 
We mention here that there are no proceedings of the 
Grand Lodge published in the 1 1723 ed. from its forma- 
tion in 1717, except at the end of the Book a notice 
that “ London, this 17th day of January, 1723, at the 

Quarterly Communication, This Book was 

this day produced here in print, and approved by the 
Society,” signed by the Grand and Deputy Grand 
Masters. 

Anderson, unfortunately for his reputation, has 
published in the 1738 edition “a list of the Lodges 
in and about London and Westminster,” with the 
places of meeting and “ dates of constitution” of each 
respectively in order. In that list, down to March , 
* 3 * 


150 ANCIENT YORK AND 

1723, there, were really only ten Lodges constituted. 
In prefatory remarks to that list, Anderson says: 
“ Many Lodges have by accidents broken up, or are 
partitioned, or else removed to new places for their 
conveniency, and so, if subsisting , they are called and 
known by those new places or their Signs. But the 
subsisting Lodges , whose officers have attended the 
Grand Lodge or Quarterly Communication, and 
brought their benevolence to the general Charity 
within twelve months past, are here set donm accord- 
ing to their seniority of Constitution , as in the Grand 
L.odge Books and the engraven list!' 

Whatever there may be in these remarks, there 
is too great a difference between ten subsisting lodges 
at that time and twenty - five Lodges being repre- 
sented January, 1723. One or both of these editions 
must be false, yet Anderson was author of the two. 
At the organization of the Grand Lodge, 1717, there 
were four Lodges. June 24th, 1721, twelve Lodges 
are mentioned. 29th September, 17.21, sixteen Lodges. 
27th December, 1721, twenty Lodges. 25th March, 
1722, twenty-four Lodges, and 17th January, 1723, 
twenty-five Lodges. What became of those other 
fifteen Lodges ? Were they bogus lodges ? or were 
they broken up “ by accidents ” ? What kind of acci- 
dents ? There can be no doubts about those on the 
Grand Lodge Books and the engraven list, yet there 
is a discrepancy here which no mathematician nor 
logician can get over. The records of the Grand 
Lodge show twenty-five lodges present, the Grand 
Lodge Books show only ten constituted at that time. 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 5 I 

There is certainly violence done to truth somewhere. 
The twenty Lodges whose Masters and Wardens ap- 
proved of the 1723 New Book of Constitutions, if 
constituted lodges must have had a local habitation if 
not a name, why not mention either or both ? Was 
it considered that the Book would not be examined 
closely, not criticised ? It was an incautious remark 
of Anderson that “ many lodges have by accidents 
broken up.” That accords with a previous opinion 
we expressed and have long held, that the many who 
seceded or left the Lodges under the London Grand 
Lodge went over to the York Lodges. 

As the York Grand Lodge was opposed to publish- 
ing anything pertaining to Masonry, as the London 
Grand Lodge manifested its hostility to that body 
of Masons by persistently ignoring its existence, and 
as it was constantly in trouble on account of the 
secession of its members, and annoyed at Lodges of 
York Masons being established in its midst, and at 
not having exclusive authority throughout the entire 
kingdom; it is a reasonable inference that the York 
Masons were quite numerous, and were increasing 
not alone from initiations in their lodges, but by ac- 
cessions from those made under the London Grand 
Lodge banners. And it is no wonder that such 
should have been the case, as the York Masons had 
antiquity of constitution on their side, had not devi- 
ated from Ancient Masonic teachings, had not inno- 
vated upon the Landmarks nor the secret work, but 
adhered to the usages and ancient ceremonies of the 
fraternity. The London Masons, those under the 


152 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


new Grand Lodge, have no such record. Their inno- 
vating tendencies manifested in 1567, were continued 
through subsequent years on many occasions ; they 
were under no consistent established authority. The 
sole aim of the London Grand Lodge was to be 
esteemed the sole Masonic government in the king- 
dom, and to attain which it resorted to any and all 
means to render itself popular among all classes of 
people, and used every effort to crush out all Masonic 
Lodges which did not render obedience to it. The 
reticence of the York Grand Lodge was detrimental to 
it in some respects, but it saved it from the damaging 
reputation which must ever follow Anderson and the 
London Grand Lodge in publishing such strange, 
anomalous and inconsistent works as the two editions 
of the Book of Constitutions, by all intelligent readers 
who will take the trouble to critically examine them. 
There are no more credulous people in the world 
than the masses of Freemasons; they accept every- 
thing as truth that pertains to Masonry, and to them 
Anderson’s Ancient Charges are veritable gospels. 

Taking advantage of the fact that the York Grand 
Lodge never permitted anything to be published con- 
cerning Masonry, some intelligent Masons, close in- 
vestigators and deep thinkers, have come to the con- 
clusion, after much research, that there were no Lodges 
of Ancient York Masons except the old Lodge at 
York, and the existence of that Grand Lodge has been 
disputed mainly on the ground that they could not 
find any records of such an Institution ; whilst at the 
same time they have themselves furnished corrob- 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


153 


orative evidence of the fact, not only that there was 
such a Grand Lodge, but also Ancient York Lodges. 
But if no records existed at this time, that would not 
be sufficient evidence that no such organization did 
exist. There is not one of the thirteen original States 
of this Union that can show a clear record from 
the time Masonry was first established within its 
borders, nay, not a clear record from the first estab- 
lishment of its Grand Lodge. The statement of the 
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, that in 1733 Henry 
Price was appointed Provincial Grand Master of New 
England, is neither confirmed by original records of 
that Grand Lodge, the records of the Grand Lodge 
of England, nor by Anderson’s Book of Constitutions 
published in 1738, nor subsequent authorized publica- 
tions by the Grand Lodge of England; although they 
contain the names of all Provincial Grand Masters, 
with the places for which they were appointed, 
the appointment of Henry Price is nowhere men- 
tioned, and yet the statement of the Massachusetts 
Grand Lodge has been universally accepted as true, 
and we could mention other like instances of the 
kind. Prior to the Revolution few records were made, 
and only a few fragments of them are preserved. 

We have many traditions, some plausible, some 
mythical, and even some of the existing records have 
been traced not to be original and to be interpolated 
with “ false facts,” as the veracious Anderson’s Con- 
stitutions are interpolated with “ false facts.” 

In the examination of Brothers Findel’s and 
Hughan’s valuable publications we find many notices, 


154 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


rightfully interpreted, substantiating our views herein 
expressed as to the continued existence of the York 
Grand Lodge ; and notwithstanding some papers ap- 
parently showing that the “ Ancient Masons ” formed 
an independent Grand Lodge, making the third Grand 
Lodge in England, they contain nothing to invalidate 
our statements that they were Masons and lodges 
holding under the York Constitution with the name 
York omitted in the publications of the London Grand 
Lodge, and Preston and others who copied from that 
source. We would freely copy from Findel’s “ His- 
tory of Freemasonry,” and Hughan’s “ History of 
Freemasonry in York,” and “Unpublished Records 
of the Craft,” but in doing so we would be obliged to 
make lengthy extracts, which with our comments on 
them would so far exceed our limits as to duplicate 
the number of pages in this small volume. 

As we are unable to find, after long search, many 
notes we had made on the Ancient Regulations adopted 
by the London Grand Lodge in the 1723 ed., and 
subsequent modifications of the same and adoption 
of new ones to the period of the union, as well as 
some comments from authors not referred to herein, 
we may hereafter issue another volume, when we shall 
review the books referred to of Brothers Findel and 
Hughan. At the same time we commend to the Ma- 
sonic Fraternity the two publications as being most 
valuable and useful, and will be considered so in the 
distant future by all intelligent reading Masons. And 
we remark here that all the quotations and extracts 
we have made from the 1723 and 1738 editions of 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 5 5 

Anderson’s Constitutions and Preston’s Illustrations 
of Masonry, will be found in our reprints of two vol- 
umes of the “ Masonic Library.” 

In this review we are biassed by no prejudice, no 
hostile feeling, no other thought, than to give a right 
direction to the popular Masonic sentiment so long 
influenced by partial writers, whose Masonic publica- 
tions were mainly intended to pervert truth in the 
interest of an Institution which it was their aim to 
represent as the only regular Masonic organization in 
England and the progenitor of the present Grand 
Lodge of England. The Masons under the London 
Grand Lodge were not a regular body of Masons; the 
Grand Lodge was not a legally constituted body; its 
organization was a usurpation of power to which it 
had no claim ; it always had been subordinate to the 
York Grand Lodge; the concession of the latter body 
in giving them the appointment of a Grand Master 
for the South did not divide the jurisdiction ; it was 
simply a privilege granted to the London Masons as 
a matter of convenience ; and they continued to hold 
that subordinate position until the revolution. And 
during the time after the privilege was granted them to 
appoint a Grand Master for the South they manifested 
a rebellious spirit and usurped unauthorized powers 
which the Grand Lodge at York in a truly Masonic 
spirit overlooked. But the London Masons did not 
respond to the kindly Masonic spirit of the Parent 
towards its contumacious, seditious offspring, and con- 
tinued insubordinate until the consummation of the 
Revolution. As a justification for their rebellious act 


156 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


they made the pretext that Sir Christopher Wren as 
Grand Master “ neglected the Lodges,” but they do 
not state the facts correctly, nor the cause. Sir 
Christopher had been Grand Master for a number of 
years, was appointed Deputy Grand Master in 1 666, 
and occupied one or the other of these offices until 
1 710, and perhaps longer, as no Grand Master is 
mentioned until 1717. He was appointed Surveyor- 
General and principal Architect by the Crown in 1666, 
and continued to hold the positions until, in his nine- 
tieth year, in the full vigor of active life, he, through 
the influence of enemies, was displaced and William 
Benson, an inferior architect, “ was made surveyor of 
the buildings, &c.” Such an insult to one of his at- 
tainments and world-wide fame caused him “to de- 
cline all public assemblies,” and the Master Masons 
in London, disgusted at the treatment of their old 
Grand Master, would not meet under the sanction of 
Benson, and “ the Brethren were struck with a leth- 
argy which seemed to threaten the London Lodges 
with a final dissolution.” 

This shows that the London Masons under the 
Grand Master at the South were much disaffected, so 
that at the formation of the Grand Lodge there was 
not a sufficient number of Lodges to constitute a 
Grand Lodge, as it was then considered that not less 
than five lodges were necessary to form a Grand 
Lodge. 

The York Masons were not affected by the demor- 
alized condition of the London craft otherwise than 
gaining members from the defection of the London 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 15 7 

body. Hence the small number of London Masons 
in 1717, at the time of the formation of the London 
Grand Lodge. The insufficient and incomplete state- 
ments of Anderson show a design to conceal and dis- 
tort important facts and mislead the reader in regard 
to actual occurrences and the existing state of Ma- 
sonry in England, from the commencement to the 
close of his Books of Constitutions. 

We have already referred to the fact that Anderson 
in the 1723 ed. is silent as to the organization of the 
Grand Lodge in 1717. He does not mention it at all. It 
is only in the 1738 ed. that he gives a few particulars 
of that event. Why did he not give those few par- 
ticulars, unsatisfactory and deficient as they are, in 
the 1723 ed., as the Grand Lodge was then , according 
to his statement, in the sixth year of its existence ? We 
can come to no other conclusion than that the story 
of the organization of the Grand Lodge in 17 1 7 is a 
fabrication , was manufactured in the interval between 
1723 and 1738. The manner in which the story is 
introduced in the 1738 ed. is sufficient to throw doubt 
upon the whole statement. Anderson was an active 
partisan in the revolution, and he was as well, if not 
better, acquainted with the facts of the organization 
of a Grand Lodge in 1723 than in 1738, if such Grand 
Lodge was formed in 1717. But there are. other cir- 
cumstances, omissions, and contradictions, which go 
far to prove, in connection with what we have already 
shown, that the story of the organization of the Grand 
Lodge in 1717 is a fiction, fabricated and invented by 
the Rev. Bro. Anderson. He mentions, as we have 
14 


158 ANCIENT YORK AND 

already stated, that twenty Masters and Wardens of 
Lodges gave their approval to the 1723 Book of Con- 
stitutions, when in his list of Lodges printed in 1738 
he shows there were only ten Lodges constituted up 
to that time, January, 1723. He does not give the 
name of the mystical brother, “ the oldest Master Ma- 
son, now the Master of a Lodge f nor the Lodge he 
was Master of; neither the names of those “ some 
old Brothers ” who with the four Lodges “constituted 
themselves a Grand Lodge pro tempore in due form.” 
That oldest Master Mason then Master of a Lodge 
was put into the chair on that occasion, and his name 
ought to have been handed down to posterity, espe- 
cially as Anderson repeats , at a subsequent meeting, 
when Mr. Antony Sayer, Gentleman, was by a ma- 
jority of hands elected Grand Master of Masons, 
“ the oldest Master Mason now the Master of a Lodge 
in the Chair.” 

Why, Bro. Anderson, did you not give the name 
of that oldest Mason Master of a Lodge, even if he 
was not a gentleman ? Why excite the curiosity of 
your brother Masons in all future time in withhold- 
ing the name of that distinguished brother, the oldest 
Master Mason the Master of a Lodge, who was put 
in the chair at that revolutionary convention, and 
again at the inauguration of that new Grand Lodge ? 
By a few strokes of your pen you would not only 
have satisfied the curiosity of your brothers, but put 
to rest forever that constant repeated inquiry, “ who 
was the oldest Mason ?” If, Brother Anderson, you 
had given the name of the Lodge that oldest Mason 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1 59 

was Master of, it would have been some satisfaction, 
as that nam'e could have been got from the Records; 
but you did no such thing, therefore the world must 
forever remain in darkness who that occupant of Sol- 
omon’s chair was. 

As Anderson is the only authority for the organi- 
zation of a Grand Lodge in London, in 1717, as his 
statements are mingled with so much mystery and 
contradiction, and as he in 1723 ed. does not men- 
tion the formation of the Grand Lodge, then in the 
sixth year of its constitution, but waits until 1738, 
fully twenty years afterwards, before he gives the dis- 
crepant, contradictory, unreconcilable information, we 
are warranted in the belief that the entire statement 
was made up by Anderson and his co-revolutionists 
to justify themselves in cutting off all relations with 
the Mother Grand Lodge at York. 

It must be remembered that prior to 1567 all the 
Masons in England derived their authority from the 
York Grand Lodge, and that at no period subsequent 
were the relations severed. The granting the privi- 
lege of selecting a Grand Master for the South did 
not affect the relations of the Masons in England ; 
they were all under the banner of the Grand Lodge 
at York, that is, were Ancient York Free and Ac- 
cepted Masons until the revolution in London, 1717; 
the London Masons, affecting independency , formed an 
independent Grand Lodge. As they were unmindful 
of their obligations prior to that time, as their own 
record proves, so they continued subsequently infring- 
ing every rule of propriety and right, and eventually 


i6o 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


changing the ancient landmarks, and thus they be- 
came an illegal body of Masons. And yet, with an 
audacity that has no parallel in history, they assumed 
to be the only legitimate body of Masons in England, 
and pronounced all others as irregular. It is true 
they ranked amongst those under their banner kings, 
princes, and the nobility, and men of high culture. 
Yet it was no difficult matter to deceive them by false 
representations, which they easily could do, as they 
were the only Masonic body that had published any- 
thing relating to Masonry; and the character of their 
publications we have only faintly noticed. And truth 
obliges us to admit, if the publications are a truthful 
record of their benevolence and charity, they carried 
out the chief of Masonic duties, the basic principle of 
Masonry, Charity, an example worthy of imitation by 
all true Freemasons, and which as a redeeming qual- 
ity goes far as a set-off to their many derelictions 
and departures from Masonic principles. 

It was the exhibitions of their noble charities more 
perhaps than anything else which attracted those in 
high life towards the Masonic Institution, as benev- 
olent and charitable actions always harmonize with 
the generous sympathies of noble and true men. It 
is of no consequence if the charities of the London 
Masons had the selfish aim of ostentation with the 
view of commending themselves to the favorable con- 
sideration of the nobility, the object of relief to the 
poor and needy was attained. 

It is to be noticed that the distinctive terms An- 
cient and Modern Masons, Preston observes as being 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. l6l 

applied by the irregular Masons in 1739, but neither 
Entick’s nor Blaney’s Books of Constitutions use the 
term Modern. As we have before stated, the term 
Modern was applied to the London Masons for 
changing the ancient usages, the distinguishing land- 
marks by which Masons everywhere recognized each 
other; but as the York Masons had not made any 
changes, but maintained and held to the ancient 
teachings, they very properly were entitled to be 
called Ancient, the title they had always held. 

But Entick does not mention the Ancient Masons 
until 1755, and only once. But 'that Ancient York 
Masons and Modern Masons were terms applied to 
two different bodies of Masons in England there can 
be no doubt : the former title to those who had not 
departed from the Ancient Landmarks ; the latter, to 
those who had. The two terms were in use until a 
very recent period, and may be yet in some places in 
instructing new-made Brothers in the mode of exam- 
ination, and such instruction can be carried back to 
the beginning of the century, although at the union 
of the two bodies in England, 1813, the distinction 
ceased. 

In connection with the subject of the union we 
make the following remarks, although we go back on 
a previous statement. When the Duke of Athol re- 
signed as Grand Master of the Ancient York Masons 
in favor of the Duke of Kent, the latter stated, after 
his installation as Grand Master, “that he had ac- 
cepted the office with the sole view of co-operating 
more effectually, perhaps , with his Illustrious Brother 
14 * L 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


162 

of Sussex, in promoting and cementing the so much 
desired Union.” As the Duke of Kent was made a 
Mason under the Ancient banner, he cautiously intro- 
duced the word “perhaps” in his remarks, reflecting 
no doubt as to the difficulty in regard to which the 
two bodies so essentially differed. It is possible that 
that was the most important difference in the Ma- 
sonry of the two bodies ; and as one or the other 
must change in order to effect a union, the perhaps 
arose in his mind, which ? The Duke of Kent was no 
doubt influenced by his Royal Brother, and the conse- 
quence of that influence is, that the Masons of Europe 
and America, with the exception perhaps of some 
parts of Germany, had entailed upon them the inno- 
vation of the London Masons in 1739, and strictly 
Ancient Masonry ceased, and Modern Masonry was 
adopted at the union. 

Anderson’s Constitutions as authority have always 
been accepted as containing the Ancient Charges of 
the craft; they have never been questioned; but if 
we examine the circumstances under which they were 
accepted and approved, and the condition of the fra- 
ternity subsequent to their adoption, a strong doubt 
may well be entertained if they were unmutilated 
copies of the Charges which the Masons were gov- 
erned by before. It may, we think, be taken for 
granted that those who formed the Grand Lodge in 
1717 had but little knowledge what the Ancient 
Charges were, and that is the view expressed by Der- 
mott. At the meeting of that Grand Lodge on 24th 
June, 1718, it was desired of the brethren “to bring 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 163 

to the Grand Lodge any old writings and records 
concerning Masons and Masonry, in order to shew the 
usages in ancient times ; and this year several old 
copies of the Gothic Constitutions were produced and 
collated.” 

The Grand Master the Duke of Montagu found 
fault with all the copies of the old Gothic Constitu- 
tions ; he ordered Brother Anderson to digest the same 
in a new and better method, and at the desire of 
the Grand Lodge, 29th September, 1721, appointed 
fourteen learned Brothers to examine Brother Ander- 
son’s manuscript. At the Grand Lodge, 25th March, 
1722, the Committee of Fourteen reported they had 
perused Brother Anderson’s manuscript, & c., and 
after some amendments had approved of it, when he 
was ordered to have it printed. 

What reliability can be placed upon a book as 
authority for the government of Masons as a rule and 
guide gotten up under such circumstances, and yet the 
large majority of Freemasons believe that the Consti- 
tutions, the Ancient Charges, as published by Ander- 
son, have been the same from immemorial time. It 
would seem, from the statement that the old Gothic 
Constitutions had to undergo revision, that the 
Grand Master found fault with them, were amended 
by the committee, that some differences of opinion in 
regard to the Compilation existed among the craft 
at that time. And in examining the records from 
1717 to 1813, the time of the union, we find, through 
all that period of nearly one hundred years, constant 
confusion, dissatisfaction, and discord among the Lon- 


164 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


don Masons, caused no doubt in a great degree by 
the departures of their Grand Lodge from the original 
Constitutions. 

Prior to the organization of the Grand Lodge in 
1717, harmony existed among the fraternity in Eng- 
land, excepting the constant encroachments the Lon- 
don Masons made on the prerogatives of the York 
Grand Lodge, which did not, however, interrupt fra- 
ternal intercourse, because the latter, like a kind 
gentle mother, would not disturb the harmony of the 
fraternity, but pursued the milder course of overlook- 
ing their exercising privileges belonging to her ex- 
clusively. But no sooner had these rebellious children 
set up an independent government for themselves and 
disowned their mother, than from the commencement 
of the new establishment disaffection among them- 
selves was manifested, disloyalty to the new regime 
appeared, and its members were constantly leaving its 
Lodges. 

There is one feature about the Books of Constitu- 
tions authorized to be published by the London 
Grand Lodge, and that is, they furnish no kind of sta- 
tistical information; it would seem to have been de : 
signed intentionally to keep even their own members 
in ignorance as to that kind of information. It is 
much to be regretted that all the Books published by 
its authority are so meagre on every subject, the de- 
tails of its transactions are so minute, that they pos- 
sess the smallest possible value to the investigating 
student. If there were any means of arriving at a 
knowledge of the proximate number of Lodges in 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 165 

England and of their members, it would in some de- 
gree be a satisfaction. It would have been most im- 
portant information, if we possessed a knowledge of 
the number of members of both bodies, to know the 
strength of each. And it is remarkable that no 
writer, not excepting Preston and Oliver, throws aside 
the veil so that we can have a glimmering of light on 
the subject. But more than all to be regretted is that 
at the union we are left in the dark as to their com- 
parative strength; the subject is not mentioned, and 
yet it would appear that so important a matter on 
that eventful and much desired occasion, the number 
of Lodges at least on each side would have been 
stated. The only matter connected with the subject 
is, according to the articles agreed on for the union, 
the Grand Master of each Grand Lodge was to ap- 
point nine expert Master Masons, and the eighteen 
experts were to form a “ Lodge of Reconciliation.” 
The names of these experts are mentioned separately, 
with the number of their Lodges set opposite their 
names. The highest number on the side of the Lon- 
don Grand Lodge is 453, and the highest on the York 
side is 244. But to the intelligent craftsman these 
numbers do not indicate the real number of working 
Lodges, as, when Lodges die out or for some cause 
are erased from the Grand Lodge Books, their num- 
bers are not immediately filled up ; succeeding 
Lodges are generally numbered upwards from the 
last on the list. 

From the foregoing review the reader will at least 
have learned the lesson that when men depart from 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


1 66 

a principle of right, from whatever motives, a condi- 
tion of inharmony will naturally arise and disturbances 
result which will render a return again to the right 
direction most difficult. The London Masons never 
lost sight of their original aim to exclusive Masonic 
rule throughout the kingdom, and with a persistence 
worthy of a better cause left no means untried, but re- 
sorted to measures disgraceful to them as men, and 
continued in their un-Masonic course, until some of the 
most upright and intelligent among them determined 
upon a change of conduct and advocated the necessity 
of a union with the Ancient York Masons. The first 
impulse to that movement was given by the Prince of 
Wales. But the departures from the Ancient Land- 
marks by the London Masons were too widely dif- 
fused and too strongly impressed upon the members 
through long years of usage to be eradicated, hence 
we have the evils originating with them entailed upon 
us. And, like the Oriental fable of Eve eating the 
tempting fruit upon which all sectarian creeds hinge, 
and upon which the popular sects predicate the dogma 
of “ original sin,” &c., the evils originating with the 
London Masons in the introducing sectarian symbols 
and theologic illustrations in Masonic teachings, have 
descended to their successors and are incorporated in 
the Masonic system throughout the world. Secta- 
rianism is the opposite to Cosmopolitanism, and con- 
sequently has no affinity with Masonry. Masonry, 
Cosmopolitan Masonry, is the light and air thought 
of the Universal Father. Sectarianism is narrow in its 
conceptions, clannish in organization, propagandive in 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. l6/ 

aim, and unprogressive in principle. Its introduction 
into the Masonic system has caused Cosmopolitan 
Masonry to be divested of its universality, of the 
great principle illustrated in God’s symbolism, and 
diverted into a narrow and constantly narrowing 
channel. The spiritual idea which underlies the 
foundation of Masonry has been lost sight of, and the 
materialism of theology generally obtains, as seen in 
the productions of most of its popular teachers and 
writers. The tendency towards a trinitarian theology 
is rapidly advancing, and innovations in that direction 
have been and are incorporated in approved Masonic 
publications. The fact may be denied, but it is as 
clear as the noonday sun ; and the Masonic Book is not 
published that does not prove our statement. The intro- 
duction of sectarianism into Masonic teachings has 
materialized the Masonic system, and the spiritual idea 
is no longer recognized or taught. 

A system, comprehending the Universal Father, 
representing the several stages of human life, and the 
beautiful phenomenon called death, progressing on- 
wards to a higher life, in its spiritual significance 
forms no part of Masonic teachings. The illustra- 
tions of modern teachers are in the main on the plane 
of materialism and sectarianism commingled. The 
spiritual is the ideal of Masonry; its reality, and 'its 
proper illustrations, are in a different direction from 
that generally taught. The symbolism of God is not 
taught in books, nor read in books, and yet His 
symbolism, so clearly illustrated that all unbiassed in- 
telligent minds can readily read, should be the com- 


i68 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


plement of Masonic teachings. God teaches through 
spiritual life, and teaches no other way. His illustra- 
tions through phenomenal nature and through man 
are the symbolisms given to our conscious percep- 
tions, as the mode and manner of his teaching to the 
human kind. It is for us to read the symbolism 
aright, so that in instructing others we can impart 
the spiritual idea which each symbol teaches. As all 
Masons should be men of scientific acquirements, 
as their relations to the fraternity require they should 
be, it becomes a duty then to demand that all who de- 
sire to be made Masons should possess the scientific 
acquirements to comprehend the spirituality of God’s 
symbolism illustrated in nature’s phenomena, or 
God’s works. It is through spirit life all forms in 
nature are outwrought through which man expresses 
his activities, mental and physical. All that we 
see, all nature, suns, planets, and worlds, and all 
within, around, and on them, are spiritual symbolic 
thoughts, God's symbols formed of and through spirit- 
life. The subjective reality ought therefore to form the 
basis of Masonic teachings, and not the objective , 
which is almost universally adopted. It is only the 
free intelligent mind that comprehends and realizes 
that man, although clothed in nature’s habiliments in 
mundane life, is a spiritual being notwithstanding. 
The spiritual survives the material life. It is inde- 
structible. It loses nothing by casting off, or being 
released from the exterior material form. Conscious- 
ness ever and eternally inheres in individual spirit- 
being, and in its progressive life, through higher 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


169 


spheres through the eternal ages, it continues to un- 
fold its divine spiritual individuality. We have only 
briefly stated our view of what should be the nature 
and character of Masonic teachings. If we take into 
consideration that we claim to be a scientific Institu- 
tion, that Masonry is a science embracing in its widest 
sense all sciences, and that the desire for knowledge 
and to benefit onr fellow-beings are requirements that 
applicants to learn our mysteries must possess ; it is 
evident that none but men of scientific culture were 
intended to be invested with a knowledge of the mys- 
teries of Masonry. 

What evidence is there that Masonry is a scientific 
institution ? Are there any exhibitions of it observa- 
ble among the members of the fraternity? Is our 
claim a mere pretence ? Are none admitted among 
the fraternity but men of scientific culture? These 
questions ought to be answered affirmatively, but in 
truth cannot be. Masonry, instead of unfolding pro- 
gressively with the intellectual advancement of scien- 
tific knowledge and general intelligence, has departed 
from the original aims of the fraternity, and is appar- 
ently inclining towards a sectarian society. That is 
plainly to be seen, not only from the close, and con- 
stantly drawing closer, relations with Templarism, 
and also the persistent determination not to expunge 
the sectarian innovations, interpolated in the ritual 
from Masonic teachings; but the increasing efforts to 
popularize the institution in many ways, and in erect- 
ing extravagant edifices out of means that should be 
devoted to charitable purposes in the relief of poor 

15 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


170 

and needy brethren, and widows and orphans of de- 
ceased Masons. These are all the natural outgrowths 
of theologic institutions influenced by a general senti- 
ment in that direction, and are inheritances coming 
down through the past century from the actors of 
that period, who in departing from Masonic principles 
transmitted their tendencies, which their descendants 
have amplified to a very great extent. The tendency 
to innovate and interpolate in Masonic teachings has 
taken a wide scope since the great Masonic charlatan 
of the United States, Thomas Smith Webb, com- 
menced his Masonic career, near the close of the last 
century. Since then the Ancient and Accepted Scot- 
tish Rite has grown vastly in this country and else- 
where. This offshoot of legitimate Freemasonry, as 
well as Webb’s new degrees and other interpolations, 
which have become incorporated in the Masonic sys- 
tem, are in contravention of the catholic, cosmopoli- 
tan principles of Ancient Freemasonry. The new 
degrees of Webb, and his corruptions of Masonic 
teachings, have been introduced in most jurisdic- 
tions in the United States; and although known that 
they did not form any part of Ancient Masonry, yet 
they were approved the same as legitimate, and are 
worked under legal authorized warrants. It would 
appear that the Masonic fraternity of this country are 
as indifferent to the ancient landmarks and usages of 
Masonry as the Masons in the past century under the 
London Grand Lodge were ; also, as if the autonomy 
of Grand Lodges was inadequate to the preservation 
of principles inherent in them as the custodians of 


LONDON GrInD LODGES. \J\ 

legitimate Masonry. In them resides the power of 
self-government; and if exercised as it should have 
been, we would not have the fungous excrescences 
of unnatural degrees and systems of so-called Masonry 
diverting the attention of the craft from the original 
system of Masonry. We can only regret that every 
Grand Lodge did not imitate the example of the 
United Grand Lodge of England in establishing the 
principle that Masonry consists of three degrees only, 
including the Royal Arch, and it would have been better 
if the Royal Arch had been returned where it was 
originally, and from which it was taken — the Master’s 
degree. But innovation and accumulation of degrees 
have been rampant, to gratify a perverted taste for 
novelty; and an insatiate curiosity for “higher de- 
grees” seems never will be appeased. The cause of 
this vitiated taste and undue curiosity is not difficult 
to solve. It is clear to every thinking mind, and has 
frequently been adverted to. The true cause is in ad- 
mitting persons into the fraternity who not only do 
not possess the requisite qualifications, but whose 
animus of desire to become Freemasons is most 
generally on the lower plane of human life. The de- 
grees are taken without the ability, in many cases, to 
comprehend the import of the lessons imperfectly 
given, and consequently the teachings are but faintly 
impressed upon the candidate. 

The character of applicants can generally be known 
by those who recommend them ;.but that makes no 
difference, as generally they are considered “ good 
fellows” by the recommenders, ahd in most cases 


1/2 ANCIENT YORK AND 

there is no further investigation. It is this class of 
men who have mainly populated our lodges in recent 
years, and who, before the faint impression of the 
Master’s degree is removed, apply for other degrees, 
pass through them in quick succession, which con- 
fuses the candidate, so that long before the Royal 
Arch is reached, the recollection of the symbolic les- 
sons has faded from the mind, all but those impor- 
tant for social purposes, the manual signals of recogni- 
tion. There may be an excuse for lodges accepting 
imperfect material, in Grand Lodge necessities, but 
otherwise no contingency can possibly arise in the 
Masonic needs of subordinate lodges, unless in ex- 
tremely rare cases. 

The quality of Masonry is generally in an inverted 
degree to its popularity. The external appearance is 
no evidence, unless in the established character of 
men well known for uprightness and integrity, and 
none but such should be admitted into our lodges. 
External show and parades, which never should be 
allowed, are qo signs of real prosperity. They are 
intended to catch the vulgar eye and influence such 
to a favorable view of Masonry. 

Neither are magnificent edifices signs of prosperity. 
Intelligent men will reason with themselves, “ Does a 
charitable institution need such an expensive estab- 
lishment ? ” “ How were the means acquired ? ” “If for 
charitable purposes, those who are the recipients of 
the charities of the institution must have been limited, 
and to their detriment, or perhaps neglected alto- 
gether.” Intelligent men will reason, and no doubt 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 173 

such thoughts as we have expressed have arisen in 
many minds. 

The thought comes, if the present popularity of 
Masonry is continued for a few years, and the rush to 
our portals and influx of members is continued of the 
material referred to, what will Masonry then be? We 
have our fears that true Cosmopolitan Masonry will 
only be known in history if the large increase of 
membership is continued and the tendency to become 
a sectarian society is not arrested; and in entertaining 
these fears we are by no means alone. 

Freemasonry, in its original aim, was to establish a 
Universal Brotherhood, without distinguishing nation- 
alities, throughout the race, and as a basis eschewed 
all opinions and beliefs, which had always caused an- 
tagonisms among men. The effort to attain that end 
which could only be accomplished in long series of 
years, was to associate men of high culture, moral in- 
tegrity, and benevolent dispositions, with the object, 
by example, to imbue their fellow-men with the con- 
sideration that their happiness in this life lay in their 
moral improvement and progressive elevation to 
higher planes of thought* and conduct. It was essen- 
tial, therefore, to illustrate properly the aim of the 
association that none should be offered as exemplars 
whose lives were not in harmony with that aim. The 
exemplary life was the first consideration, if estab- 
lished from early youth. Not as propagandists, nor 
as reformers, did they undertake to carry out their 
views; only as their example influenced their fellow- 

15* 


men. 


174 ANCIENT YORK AND 

Within this brief statement we give the basis of 
Masonic association. Its origin is not to be traced 
any more than the original conception of any thought. 

It may have developed out of the Egyptian, Eleu- 
sinian, Dioclesian, or other ancient mysteries, or 
the builders or stonemasons. We do not believe in 
the Solomonian theory any more than the 1717 ori- 
gin. Associations do not spring into being at once. 
There must have been a conception long maturing 
into a thought ; and that thought, unfolding in cen- 
turies, matures the conception on the plane of intelli- 
gence, the needs of the time demand. The true 
origin of everything is in the primal conception, the 
germ which unfolds and develops, as all things in na- 
ture unfold from a germ and develop to maturity. 
But a thought never matures, because perfection is 
not possible to finite being. It however continues 
through the eternal ages to develop, as the interior 
perceptive faculties unfold. There is, therefore, a 
germ of truth in all the projected theories of the \ 
origin of Freemasonry. 

Freemasonry is continually being modified in some 
direction or other. It has undergone many changes 
in the third of a century since we received the degrees 
of Masonry. Thought is never stationary. As with 
Freemasonry, so it has been with the so-called reli- 
gious systems. All have developed out of a crude 
original conception,’ a common germ developed ac- 
cording to the conditions, times, and planes of human 
intellectual unfoldment. It has been the same with 
arts, science, philosophy, jurisprudence, governments, 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 1/5 

and social systems, obtaining in differing nations and 
races ; all are the outgrowths of a primal conception, 
unfolded in the infancy of intellectual development. 
The basic principle of a germinal thought ever re- 
mains in all the outgrowths of development. The 
origin of no thing can ever be traced. The mind, in 
its efforts at exhaustive investigation, will necessarily 
be arrested by the limitation of the interior faculties 
or the incapacity of the mind to receive the impres- 
sions ; and relief can only be found in the conclusion 
that all things have their origin in the infinite mind 
which by universal acceptance mankind agree in 
naming God. 

Inductive reasoning necessarily commences where 
deductive reasoning ends, as to trace from the primal 
effort in producing phenomena is beyond the capacity 
of the finite mind ; yet the deductive investigation 
advances, step by step, until its progress is seemingly 
arrested, but the investigation does not stop. It is, 
and ever will be, pursued by active, intelligent minds, 
seeking primal original causes. Truth is the aim of 
all honest inquiry. Truth is a unit , existing only in 
the Infinite, and towards the Unit truth all true inves- 
tigations tend, whatever the subject or object of in- 
quiry may be. That is a truth scientists have yet to 
learn ; but confined in the range of their investiga- 
tions to traditional, authority, they limit the scope of 
their inquiries in accord with theologic conceptions of 
the Originator and moving Cause and unfolder of 
nature and material phenomena. All development of 
mind ever tends towards the unit thought. In the 


176 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


ultimate all things are a unit, that is, a dual unit. A 
single does not exist, and cannot. It does not follow 
that because a so-called Elementary, Primary cannot 
be reduced, that it is not a compound. There can be 
no form, no force, light, heat, no thing that is a simple 
elementary. Nothing can exist that is not formed, 
outwrought of the dual unit- principle. Webster, in 
his definition of Elementary, is at fault, notwithstand- 
ing he accepts the views of the scientists. 

The study of man and phenomenal nature properly 
comes within the scope of Masonic investigations. 
They should form the chief of Masonic teachings, to 
lead the minds of the members from the frivolities 
which generally engage their attention, and occupy 
their thoughts to higher considerations and higher 
conceptions of God. Masonry should be considered 
the all, the complement of science, because man is 
the subject, and man is what concerns Masonry. The 
study of man has always been considered the chief of 
studies. It is the most important, because man is the 
co-worker with God in the advancement of the race, 
in civilization, in improving the conditions to higher 
attainments to benefit mankind. 

In this progressive age, of all institutions and 
associations, Masonry ought to be in the advance 
in unfolding and disseminating intelligence, and 
giving light on all subjects important and interesting 
to their fellow-men. But where shall we find this 
important progressive knowledge? It is not in print, 
in authorized or unauthorized publications; these are 
mainly written in the same style and train of thought 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. Iff 

as the publications in England in the past century we 
have referred to, laudatory of principles of Masonry 
and the increasing prosperity of the institution, as the 
increase of members and increase of funds are consid- 
ered. There are some exceptions to that broad state- 
ment in regard to authorized, but none that we can 
remember of unauthorized Books on Masonry. 

If we look for progressive light in the primary de- 
partments, the subordinate lodges, we look in vain. 
The Masters have not generally the ability, if they 
had the disposition ; and if they had both, the time is 
not at their command. The influx of applicants ab- 
sorbs all the time in conferring degrees, which must 
be done rapidly, and much must of necessity be omit- 
ted ; and it is not only fatiguing, but the mind of the 
Master cannot? be sufficiently concentrated to perfect 
his work as it should be done. This condition of 
things arises from the assumed prosperity and the 
popularity inaugurated by the fraternity, bringing 
money into the treasuries and accession of members 
to lodges. The introduction of imperfect material, 
and the necessity of instructing candidates imper- 
fectly, are evils that cannot fail to injure most mate- 
rially the institution. But that which is of more 
importance is that the spiritual significance of Ma- 
sonic illustration is not taught, and hence the teach- 
ings are devoid of those lofty inspiring sentiments 
which touch the mind and heart, and become deeply 
impressed i^pon the consciousness. 

We consider Freemasonry the best institution, in its 
original principles, that the reason and intellectual 
M 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


1/8 

development of man has ever conceived. It had its 
basis in the rights of man, the liberty of the indi- 
vidual, the dignity of labor, the recognition of the 
unity of the race, and the aim through progressive 
education, enlightenment, and civilization, to promote 
the elevation of man to a higher status of manhood, 
and a purer, truer conception of the divinely formed 
human being, and of the Divine Unfolder of the Uni- 
verse. No institution or association of men was ever 
founded upon such noble benevolent designs, in pro- 
moting the culture and welfare of the race, and by 
humanizing efforts to elevate their thoughts to higher 
conceptions of their own being and their mission 
through the eternal future life. The design was of a 
far loftier character than any theology teaches or 
ever taught. Its consistent, practical, and ultimate 
attainments have never been eliminated or reached by 
any known system of ethics for man’s guidance and 
rule of conduct. Its principles, free from all mystery, 
and acceptable to the understanding and conscience, 
have been intermixed by charlatans and designing 
teachers with creedal dogmas, in agreement with 
orthodox religionist tenets, with the aim to render 
Masonry acceptable to believers, and to popularize 
the Institution. 

We acknowledge the efforts to have been effec- 
tive, as the reports of committees on the sectarian 
question, approved by the Grand Lodges of New 
York and Massachusetts, and the general ritualistic 
teachings in Masonic lodges, prove. And that the 
reports were approved by these two Grand Lodges, 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


179 


shows the dominant influence of sectarianism, which 
is greatly on the increase since Templarism has been 
engrafted as a “ higher degree,” and which as a means 
of deception has been destructive of the cosmopolitan 
character of Masonry, and inconsistent with every 
principle of the Masonic institution. Masonry is no 
longer Free, in its original sense, as a cement of union 
to good and true men of every religious opinion ; only 
in the narrow and perverted sense embraced in the 
inconclusive and illogic views of the reports of the 
committees referred to. 

It is greatly to be lamented that men of biassed, of 
intolerant dispositions, were ever admitted into Ma- 
sonic Lodges, as history in all the past proves that 
such were ever inimical to the peace and good order 
of society, and therefore were, from the very nature 
and design of Masonry, excluded from admission into 
the fraternity: To the Reverends Desaguliers and 
Anderson, in introducing sectarianism into the body 
of Masonry, we trace all subsequent innovations of 
that character, which ultimating in a color of recog- 
nition of Templarism, as in the order of higher de- 
grees of Masonry, its proper universal feature is only 
referred to to deceive the ignorant. Masonry and 
Templarism are opposites, as discord and harmony, 
peace and war, right and wrong, light and dark, good 
and evil, which the obligations, the teachings, working 
tools and implements clearly show, as well as the 
qualifications required to become a Knight Templar. 

We have been impelled from necessity to express 
our views in regard to innovations, tending to subvert 


l80 ANCIENT YORK AND 

the very foundation of Masonry, strongly, deter- 
minedly, and reproachfully. The times demand it, 
because of the general depreciation of Cosmopolitan 
Masonry — nay, ignoring it practically, — and because 
of the general desire to be known as a high Mason, 
and because of the undue ambition, so generally en- 
tertained, to acquire official position ; and lastly, be- 
cause all of these growing evils so plainly manifest, 
those in high places holding the highest positions, in 
their annual communications, in place of, with very 
rare exceptions, noticing the tendency and drift of 
these evils and the ultimate result to the Institution, 
overlook them as if they did not exist. Their ex- 
pressions are mostly confined to flattering the feel- 
ings of the craft, in lauding in flowery and glowing 
sentiments the beauties of Masonry and the excellence 
of its principles, which, understood properly, are 
mainly severe sarcasms of what should be, and not 
intended as what is. It is true much is said against 
intemperance, profanity, gambling, &c., all of which 
evils are the natural results of the imperfect material 
so largely brought into the Masonic Temple. But 
there never should have been a necessity for men- 
tioning that these evils exist among the fraternity; 
and if the qualifications which Masonry requires of 
applicants had been strictly observed, there would be 
no need of mentioning them at all. As they do exist, 
the mere statement and inefficient action will not 
eradicate the vices. 

The only remedy, and the true one, is “ to revert to 
the ancient Landmarks,” as the London Masons were 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. l8l 

compelled to, and revert to the high standard of 
qualifications Masonry demands, which the antece- 
dent life of applicants must have proved. That step, 
and' that alone, will be a sure guarantee that the 
drunkard, the gambler, and the profane will not be 
found within the Masonic Temple. It is no excuse 
whatever, as is often remarked, that these vices exist 
in the Church. Masonry is founded upon widely dif- 
ferent principles. It has a code of rules of its own. 
It is not the handmaid of religion, as the religionists 
among us frequently assert. Its true mode, in the strict 
sense, is to unfold the God in man. Not according 
to any ism, to any church creed, but by the exem- 
plification of a divine life, in doing good, in helping 
and assisting his brother man, formed in the likeness 
of God, to improve his moral status, to illustrate in 
his actions that he is a child of God, to obey his inte- 
rior divine impulses, and by subordinating his animal 
nature, to progress onward and upward to a higher 
sphere, to the spiritual, in view of the eternal life be- 
fore him. 

True Freemasonry has no system of faith or belief; 
its object is human elevation, in all that is necessary 
to that attainment. Its aim* is practical, and not a 
belief which may be right or wrong. Belief is not 
knowing , but doing good, and acting right towards 
our brother man is the only way to “walk with God.” 

If we take into consideration that God is only 
known as he is manifested in and through his works, 
and that man is the ultimate and the chief of his crea- 
tion, it is only through the activities of the human 

16 


182 


ANCIENT YORK AND 


being that God is known. And as human beings 
unfold their interior divine natures, the possibilities 
existing within them, they become co-workers with 
God in improving the race and improving the phe- 
nomena in nature, through intelligent action in elim- 
inating the possibilities existing in nature. Man, 
through his intelligence, has improved the physical 
forms of animals, of vegetables, fruits and flowers, 
showing that the possibilities exist in him and in 
nature ; but nature cannot improve unless it is 
directed by the intelligent human being. All the 
advances in civilization, in every direction, whereby 
humanity has been benefited, has been made through 
efforts unfolding, bringing out, the possibilities in the 
human being. 

These sparks of scientific thought come properly 
within the province of Masonic teachings. But teach- 
ing alone is not sufficient. Every human being has 
a capacity for something which should be cultivated 
with all the intelligence man can bring to bear upon 
it; and just in the degree he does he will unfold his 
interior possibilities. The mode of God’s manifesta- 
tions is visible throughout the universe, and is ever 
and ever teaching humanity, through material phe- 
nomena, unfoldment. Barren ground will not bear fruit. 
The indolent man is not a producer. Man was made to 
exercise his faculties, according to his best capacity, 
to promote his own welfare and to benefit his fellow- 
men. He should be a producer, as God intended 
him to reciprocate, in some way, for that which he 
consumes. All men should be producers, as all are 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


183 


consumers. There is, therefore, an interrelation and 
dependence among and between all men. Man was 
not made for himself alone. Useful employment is 
practical devotion to the Supreme Being. If Masonic 
teachings were on the high plane they should be, Ma- 
sonry would rank as a scientific institution — a school 
embracing all sciences, as some writers have claimed' 
it to be. 

Let us hope that the time is not distant when sci- 
entific instruction will be adopted, — when intelligent, 
unbiassed free minds will give a direction to remove 
the corruptions, the innovations, and false conceptions 
so largely interwoven in the Masonic ritual ; and a 
higher — the highest qualifications demanded as ab- 
solute to a knowledge of the mysteries of Masonry. 

It is a fundamental principle of Ancient Masonry 
that applicants for its mysteries shall be “ good and 
true ” men, and not that they shall, or may, become 
such after they have been admitted into the frater- 
nity. As we have already remarked, Freemasonry is 
not a reformatory association; therefore, the knowl- 
edge must be conclusive that applicants are, in the 
fullest sense, good and true men before their application 
is acted on. The two terms must be taken conjointly, 
as expressive of perfect, upright man, in the widest 
application of the words. 

In not seeking for the qualifications which Ancient 
Masonry demands, the standard was lowered, to the 
great injury of Masonry, and the consequent result 
was, that departures from its original design followed 
in interpolations and innovations, which have changed 


184 ANCIENT YORK AND 

its character and given it a direction contravening its 
fundamental principles and the primary object and 
aim of the institution. It is generally admitted that 
much of the material brought into the Masonic Temple 
is too imperfect to be used in its construction ; alto- 
gether unsuited to be wrought in the constructing of 
the moral edifice. A return then to original princi- 
ples is demanded. A strict adherence not to admit 
within the portals of the institution, for the sake of 
friendship, or any other considerations, those who do 
not come up to the standard Masonry requires ; who 
•have not proved themselves to be good and true men 
in their conduct and intercourse with their fellow- 
beings, and as, in the motive expressed to become a 
Mason, “ a desire of knowledge and to benefit their 
fellow-men,” was the object, was not clearly mani- 
fested in their antecedent lives. 

Let the heart and soul of all Freemasons be then 
directed to a return to original principles. Admit no 
applicants into the moral structure of Freemasonry 
whose lives are not in accord with the grand design 
of the Great Overseer ; those who by the tests of 
the Plumb, Level, and Square, in their moral signifi- 
cance, are not upright, good, and true men. Glorious 
will be the advent of that determination. Its ultimate 
results will be that Masonry will rank high above all 
other institutions and associations of men, and its 
light will so shine, through the exemplary divine life 
of its membership, that there will be no need to laud 
the institution, to gratify the fraternity, nor to seek 
the world’s popularity. May the eventful day arrive 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 185 

when the benign and beneficent aims of Masonry will 
be clearly manifest, that its influences will pervade the 
world of mankind, inducing them to a higher culture 
of individual life, a higher civilization, a closer fra- 
ternity, and peace and good will truly prevail through- 
out the world. Great and glorious will be that con- 
summation, and let us pray, So mote it be. 

We close with remarking that it is our decided 
opinion that the union would not have been formed 
if it had not been for the intelligent and unbiassed 
views of the Prince of Wales, the patron of Freema- 
sons in England. His mind was not cramped by the 
narrow views and little ambition of the leading 
London Masons. He had a higher regard for Truth 
than an equivocal title to origin of institutions. His 
noble soul was -not confined within the narrow 
bounds of those who preceded him as Grand 
Master. He appears to have studied well the causes 
of the differences existing among the Masons in his 
kingdom, and, true to the instincts of his noble nature 
and his intelligent and benevolent good heart, he rose 
above those petty prejudices that inspired the London 
Masons for nearly a century, and which he manifested 
in the most magnanimous manner, in expressing that 
his “ arms would ever be open to receive all the Masons 
in the kingdom indiscriminately .” We hear him utter 
no equivocal untruthful remarks, nothing to embitter 
feelings nor to excite animosities, such as the London 
Masons had continually manifested at their commu- 
nications and in their publications. In that brief 
remark he expressed more wisdom and Masonic jus- 


l86 ANCIENT YORK AND 

tice than in all that was said or written by the 
London Masons in the prior eight decades. Indeed 
it formed the germ which ultimated in the union. It 
would seem that the Duke of Athol accepted it as a 
basic principle on which to found an agreement, with- 
out prejudice or loss of dignity or principle to the 
Masonic fraternity, over whom he had presided for a 
period of twenty years. He had confidence in the 
Prince of Wales that no injustice would be done, no 
wrong in favor of either side in the details of arrange- 
ment for a union, but that everything would be con- 
ducted in a true Masonic spirit and on Masonic prin- 
ciples, and that no compromise of honor would be 
expected or demanded. In such belief he resigned 
his position as Grand Master, and nominated the 
Duke of Kent as his successor, whom he well knew, 
being an Ancient York Mason, would not enter into 
any agreement compromising the honor or dignity of 
the Masons of whom he was Grand Master. 

The remark referred to of the Prince of Wales no 
doubt had its effect upon the London Masons, as we 
find them taking the necessary preliminary steps to- 
wards a union with a body of Masons who had made 
no changes in the secret work of the institution; by 
the Committee of Charity, submitting a proposition, 
which the Grand Lodge approved, April 12th, 1809, 
by passing a resolution enjoining the several lodges 
“to revert to the Ancient Landmarks of the Society,” 
and to carry which into effect the Lodge of Promul- 
gation was appointed. This Lodge was supported by 
subscriptions from the Lodges, and it was composed 


LONDON GRAND LODGES. 


18/ 


of many members, and only such as were well ac- 
quainted with the Ancient Landmarks. And as much 
time was necessarily employed in carrying out the 
intent of the resolution, without remuneration, and as 
it could not be expected that the members could give 
their time and attention to a subject of such impor- 
tance as teaching all of the Masons what the true 
Landmarks were, therefore the Grand Lodge recom- 
mended the Lodges to continue the subscriptions 
until the expenses of the Lodge of Promulgation were 
discharged. 

In the “Articles of Union between the two Grand 
Lodges of England,” the Duke of Kent has the pre- 
cedence as “ Grand Master of Free and Accepted 
Masons of England, according to the Old Institutions ,” 
“on the one part,” and the Duke of Sussex, as “Grand 
Master of the Society of Free and Accepted Masons 
under the Constitution of England,” “ on the other 
part;” which corroborates in language, position, and 
expression, the views herein given that the Grand 
Lodge at York had a continued existence according 
to the old institutions, down to the time when it 
united with the London Grand Lodge in forming a 
Grand Lodge under one Grand Master for the whole 
of England. The union took place in 1813, when the 
title of the United Grand Lodges became, The United 
Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons of England. 


ADDENDUM. 


On page 99, the law enacted April 10th, 1777, would 
seem to have been passed for the purpose of forbidding the 
Masons under the London Grand Lodge from being present 
at the Conventions or meetings of. the so-called Ancient 
Masons; and also forbidding their admittance into their 
Lodges “without being remade,” from which we conclude 
that the members of both sides fraternized and visited each 
other’s Lodges, without noticing their being regular or irreg- 
ular. And from the frequent mention of irregular Lodges, 
and passing resolutions interdicting intercourse with irregu- 
lar made Masons, or meeting with them in their Lodges, by 
the London Grand Lodge, it would appear that such reso- 
lutions and enactments were disregarded by many of its 
members, and that their visiting the irregular Lodges was 
continuous. But there is no mention of a single “irregu- 
lar” “Ancient” Mason being “remade,” which, if there 
had been, the London Grand Lodge would have noticed 
the fact, and magnified each one tenfold. The York 
Grand Lodge is not mentioned in that law, nor any refer- 
ence to it, as, in other exceptions of. censures, in which it is 
named in connection with Scotland and Ireland. The law 
reads “the persons who assemble in London and else- 
where,” the elsewhere meaning the city of York and other 
places where York Lodges held meetings, and therefore 
the omission of the York Grand Lodge in the exemption 
from censure. That omission is a clear proof that the York 
Grand^Lodge was the body under whose authority the so- 
called *“ irregular lodges ” held their constitutions, and who 
were called Ancient Masons. 

At page 106, the Earl of Moira, in his speech before the 

1S8 


ADDENDUM. 


189 

Grand Lodge in Edinburgh, in speaking of the “irregular 
Masons” in England, remarks, “with whom he under- 
stood the Grand Lodge of Scotland had established an in- 
tercourse.” We have already commented on that speech, 
and request the reader to turn back again and re-read the 
Earl’s remarks. He says, he understood , &c., as if he had, 
as the Acting Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Eng- 
land, only recent information of the fact. That speech 
was made in 1803, and the intercourse between the Grand 
Lodge of Scotland 'and the Grand Lodge at York had ex- 
isted for many years; and, in 1772, as showing the fraternal 
intercourse between them, the Duke of Athol, who was 
Grand Master elect of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, was 
elected Grand Master of the Ancients — the Ancient York 
Masons — and continued to hold that position until 1813. 
Of all of these facts the Earl of Moira must have had 
knowledge, and he must have kno 7 vn — not understood — 
that the Grand Lodge of England, on April 10th, 1777, 
(see page 108,) took action against the “Ancient Masons,” 
under “the patronage of the Duke of Athol.” Therefore 
the Earl of Moira did not express the truth in his speech 
before the Grand Lodge at Edinburgh. The Earl of Moira 
was a strong partisan of the London Grand Lodge, and 
un-Masonic and uncharitably vindictive against the York 
Masons, styling them, indiscriminately, seceders, irregu- 
lar Ancients, but never giving them their proper title, 
Ancient York, as the name York had been long before 
tabooed by the London Grand Lodge. But the liberal and 
unconditional view of the Prince of Wales expressed to the 
Earl of Moira as to the Masons throughout “ the kingdom 
indiscriminately ” caused him to change his course of action, 
and pursue the only proper course to attain a union with 
the Ancient York Masons, which the London Masons so 
much desired; that was “to' revert again to the Ancient 
Landmarks of the Society.” Every student in Masonry 
knows what that means, and that it was the Masons under 
the London Grand Lodge who had changed the Land- 
marks ; but from some cause or other the change to the 
Ancient Landmarks was not complete. It may have been 
that the York Masons in and near London, in their frequent 


9 o 


ADDENDUM. 


intercourse with the London Masons, were so indoctrinated 
with the innovation, that at the union their influence, 
added to the body of London Masons, may have prevailed 
in adopting “the right to the left and the left to the 
right,” and transmitting the change through future Ma- 
sonic teachings. 

At page 122, last paragraph, Oliver mentions “the An- 
cients after their secession,” held their meetings “without 
acknowledging a superior until 1772,” when the Duke of 
Athol was chosen Grand Master. That is written in the 
Oliverian style, in the interest of the London Grand Lodge. 
He would make it appear that from 1739 to 1772 there 
were no Lodges in England of York Masons, and that 
those who seceded from the London Lodges were without a 
Grand Master, and consequently held meetings for thirty- 
one years without any warrant of authority. The statement 
is certainly ridiculous on its face. It is true we do not 
know who preceded the Duke of Athol as Grand Master. 
But as the Duke held the position of Grand Master of Scot- 
land, it cannot be reasonable to believe that he would 
accept the position of Grand Master of an unorganized 
body Of Masons in England. The intelligent Masons and 
members of the Grand Lodge of Scotland would not have 
permitted the dignity of the office to such humiliation. 
The object of the London Grand Lodge was to mystify 
the whole subject in reference to York Lodges and the 
seceders from its Lodges, and it had pliant tools in the 
publishers of the Books of Constitutions and Preston, and 
Oliver, who was its subsequent mouthpiece. But notwith- 
standing all that was said and done, the desire on the part 
of the London Masons for a union with those Ancients was 
strong and continued until they were forced to take the first 
movement towards its accomplishment. On same page 
(122), last line, Oliver continues the subject, and says, 
“This venerable nobleman,” referring to the Duke of 
Athol, “ we may presume , was convinced by the Royal 
Duke’s arguments,” &c., “how desirable must be an 
actual and cordial union of the two societies under one 
head.” The reader cannot fail to have perceived that 
through all the transactions of the London Grand Lodge 


ADDENDUM. 


I 9 I 

which we have noticed, the Ancients, seceders, irregulars, 
are all mentioned as outlaws and outcasts, in the most 
offensive manner, and by no means in a kindly or cordial 
spirit referied to before the Lodge of Promulgation was 
appointed. And consequently no effort was made to a 
reconciliation, even so late as the Earl of Moira’s speech in 
Grand Lodge after his return from Edinburgh. All of 
which goes to prove that the London Grand Lodge strove 
to gain its end as the only Masonic authority in England 
to the very last, by persecuting and other un-Masonic acts, 
in hopes either to get the Ancients, irregulars, and seceders 
to disband their Lodges, or to absorb them under its Consti- 
tutions. -And it also proves that the York Masons, to whom 
the offensive titles were applied, were strong enough to 
maintain their organization, would not recognize the Ma- 
sons under the London Grand Lodge as Ancient Masons, 
therefore had no desire to form a union with them, and did 
not consider the subject until after the appointment of the 
Lodge of Promulgation, which was April, 1809. It was 
not the persuasion of the Royal Duke which inclined the 
Duke of Athol to a union, but the fact that the London 
Masons were compelled by the appointment of the Lodge 
of Promulgation by official authority, to revei't again to the 
Ancient Landmarks of the Society . That action, and the 
expression of the Prince of Wales, who had the confidence 
of the York Masons, induced them to unite in forming a 
Grand Lodge under one head. 

As we have referred on several occasions to Templarism, 
in the course of our writing, we deem it to be just to the 
reader, as well as to ourself, to give our views in regard to 
that institution and its assumed relation to Freemasonry, 
although our opinions have heretofore appeared in print, 
and we believe are known to the fraternity generally. We 
have no more objection to Templarism than to any other 
so-called religious organization; nay, less, for reasons we 
will advance. We object to any claim of relation with 
or to Freemasonry. We believe that claim has been detri- 
mental to both institutions. Templarism is not Masonry, 
and never was so considered by intelligent Sir Knights. 
The presumed relation in requiring its applicants to be 


192 


ADDENDUM. 


Freemasons has been detrimental to it in preventing many 
good Christian men averse to Masonry, and many Masons, 
from joining their ranks who otherwise would if it was a 
distinct and separate organization . We have satisfied ourself 
on that point in a large intercourse with the clergy and 
members of Christian churches. As a separate organiza- 
tion, Templarism would be more widely known and would 
have a larger field to carry out its aims in any humanizing 
and benevolent efforts. Our objections are not to Tem- 
plarism, per se, as a religious order. We favor any and all 
organizations whose objects are to care, provide for, and re- 
lieve the poor and needy ; and in that high and noble aim 
Templarism in recent years has shown in its benevolences 
a humanizing spirit commendable in a high degree. In 
our aims and pursuits we are practical, and favor any asso- 
ciation which practically demonstrates its principles in 
aiding its fellow - beings in times of need. It is in that 
view that we have considered the subject at all ; and we 
have long been convinced that the relation of Templarism 
to Masonry has. been injurious to each. Templarism has 
been detrimental to Masonry in its influences in a sectarian 
direction ; and its relation to Masonry has been injurious 
in confining its membership to the Masonic fraternity, thus 
preventing many of the best class of Christians from com- 
ing into their association. If the Templar bodies would 
sever their connection with Masonry, and not make Ma- 
sonic relation a qualification, and raise their standard high, 
they would soon become the leading organization in the 
civilized world. A presumed relation of the two different 
organizations has existed for many years. But the great 
American Masonic charlatan, Thomas Smith Webb, after 
engrafting the views of his innovations into the body of 
Masonry, then circumscribed the area of Templarism by 
engrafting into the Templar Constitution the qualification 
that applicants must be Royal Arch Masons. That the 
Templar organizations have submitted to the dictation and 
authority of Webb is a matter not easily explained, as the 
whole of his Masonic career was employed in fabricating 
new degrees, and interpolating, all for the sake of popularity 
to gain official position, and to be considered the leading 
mind in the fraternity of Masons. 


















































































1 








































































, 
















- - 




































































































f 










































































k 










































4 










4 

* , 





































' 







































, 









* 

* 













* 










































































» 


■ 























* 

















• - 

I' J I 


























SCHENCK’S PULMONIC SYRUP, 

SEAWEED TONIC AND MANDRAKE PILLS. 

These deservedly celebrated 

POPULAR MEDICINES 

have effected a revolution in the 
healing art, and forbid the fal- 
lacy of several maxims, which 
have, for many years, obstruct- 
ed the progress of 

MEDICAL SCIENCE. 

The false supposition that 
“ Consumption is incurable,” 
deterred physicians from at- 
tempting to find remedies for 
that disease, and patients 
afflicted with it reconciled 
themselves to death without 
making an effort to escape 
from a doom which they supposed to be unavoidable. It is now 
proved, however, that 

CONSUMPTION CAN BE CURED, 

and that it has been cured in a great number of cases, (some of them 
apparently desperate ones,) by 

SCHENCK’S PULMONIC SYRUP 

alone; and in other cases, by the same medicine in connection with 

SCHENCK’S SEAWEED TONIC AND MANDRAKE PILLS, 

one or both, according to the requirements of the case. Dr. Schenck 
himself, who has enjoyed uninterrupted good health for more than 
thirty-five years, was supposed at one time to be at the very gate 
of death, the physician having pronounced his case hopeless, and 
abandoned him to his fate. He was cured by the aforesaid medicines, 
and since his recovery, many thousands similarly afflicted have used 
Dr. Schenck’s Preparations with the same remarkable success. 
Full directions accompany each, making it not absolutely necessaiy to 
personally see Dr. Schenck, unless persons wish their lungs examined. 

All letters for business or advice (which is free) should be 
directed to 

J. H. SCHENCK & SON, 

N. E. Cor. Sixth and Arch Streets, Philadelphia, Pai 




